As someone who "educates" others, I am sure you understand the importance of presenting credible information.Here is some for you since your current knowledge base is incorrect, and I imagine you would want to present valid information to those that you educate. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, developed by the United Nations Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Association, two multinational governing bodies with no political agenda. The IPCC has roughly 200 countries that collaborate on the science, making recommendations to governments around the world. This panel is comprised of leading scholars in a wide variety of fields who focus on climate change origins, impacts, and solutions. These people are a UN-based think tank that is open, transparent, publicly funded and non partisan. This group of national representatives, works to disseminate from thousands of scientifically generated studies (on both sides of the climate change debate), an accurate measure of the issue. Their work has conclusively concluded that climate change is real, and has been greatly accelerated by human actions, including but not limited to, global deforestation, urbanization, (change in land-use cover), and increased releases of atmospheric gases that have natural tendencies to absorb energy in the form of heat (carbon dioxide and methane being the two most discussed). The rate of change in global climate, is unprecedented in over 100 000 years of climate data, derived from ice cores all over the globe, and from countless independent studies, all concluding similar results. Other methods for measuring atmospheric gases and climate change corroborate these findings (e.g dendrochronology, palynology, varve studies etc.). This change is directly tied to rapid expanded use of fossil fuels by humans in the 1800's, which have allowed for all of the above noted problems to develop (human population expansion, deforestation etc.). These changes resulting from fossil fuel discovery and use, have caused imbalances in the natural carbon cycle whereby carbon is naturally released (e.g. forest fires, decaying organic material), and absorbed (e.g. plant/tree growth, ocean absorption). Recent studies have also discovered that predicted rates of change made a decade ago, are greatly underscoring the actual issue which is accelerating and exceeding predictions. This is due to a host of factors including: a continued unfettered growing human population relying on finite resources (with pervasive tendencies for over consumption), continued wide-spread habitat loss, massive deforestation for agricultural production (to feed this exploding population), continued release of carbon through use of fossil fuels, thawing of permafrost which is a natural sink for carbon, loss of polar ice which permits greater warming thus leading to increased retention of heat, decline in global ice cover which has the same effect as polar ice loss, reduction in oceanic coral and algae which act as carbon sinks, maxing of oceanic absorption capabilities, changes in oceanic currents, as well as several other factors. All of this contributes to climate changes and all of this is due to human activity. These conclusions are not fake news or falsified data. They are drawn from countless independent, international, interdisciplinary, non partisan, publicly and privately funded studies from across the globe, and are a matter of great concern. Claiming that climate change is a hoax is irresponsible for future generations and we all need to seek out as much credible information as possible. The big oil companies have done a good job of muddying the waters with "falsified" studies, and even they are coming on board recognizing the shift in global political ideology, the tremendous opportunities for innovation, and the potential for legal action in response to their inaction. I hope you are open to change both in terms of your thoughts and your actions, you are truly hurting yourself if you perpetually are reluctant to change, be in on climate change or other. All the best.
Something else needs to be addressed and I don't feel editing the below quote brought the point of the edit to attention well enough so I'll do it in a new post.... Now, whoever was insulted by the "Chicks" part of that comment has more of a sexist ideology than I do. I never even conceived of the possibility that "chicks" could be taken to mean women in the context of that post nor have I ever put forward any inkling of sexist lingo in my thousands of posts. Anyone who could have taken it that way has a sexist mentality of women and also a sexist view of men that they'd concieve "chicks" in that context. It doesn't even make any sense used in the sexist context. If that was actually what you were offended by then you have more of a problem than I do. To make matters worse, if you were insulted then there is a dislike function to make it known rather than acting like a sniveling coward and lodging a complaint with mods over it. A simple dislike and a post and a post or a PM complaining about it publicly and to me personally would have been a far more respectable way to handle it. I would have quickly laid the concern to rest and made the context and meaning clear of the term used. I suppose I could have posted "baby chicks" in the OP but that seemed blatantly redundant being a chick is a baby bird...I mean, really...good grief.[/QUOTE] I can't imagine anyone reading your previous comment and honestly responding, would assume you were referring to birds. This is a public forum open to everyone. 50% of the population are female and 100% of the population came from one! On top of this, there is a likelihood that the females using this forum to learn about bowhunting in a typically male dominated sport, might feel uncomfortable complaining directly to you feeling that a formal complaint would result in greater action, which based on your responses is an accurate point. Children too may be using this forum to learn about bowhunting. We should encourage this but we must tailor our comments accordingly so negative influences and gender stereotypes are avoided in at least one realm. As a user of a public forum that should be promoting safe, responsible use of archery and bowhunting through education, we need to welcome people of all ages and both genders. Avoiding disrespectful tones, abusive sarcasm, gender discrimination and blatant insults are vital to this end. They HAVE! Better go with them!
Climate change is real. Man made climate change is unproven theory. The climate has gone through the exact same thing we are seeing multiple times, in many cases he cycles have been faster than the current.
When did this turn into a debate if chicks mean baby birds or women? And if your one of those people who get offended over chicks being a term for women, don't reply because chances are I'm gonna say alot that offends you. Grow some thicker skin people. Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
That is called a theory. actually unproven theory. There are plenty of unproven theories that show human activity having little to no impact also.
So at what point does theory become fact and how much evidence will you need to recognize the "theory" has indeed been proven and it is no longer simply a theory?
Hard to say, but there is plenty of counter theories dealing with climate change and greenhouse gases. There is plenty of ongoing research that is showing that the greenhouse gases actually lag temperature, meaning as the temp increases which started long before the industrial age, there is natural release of greenhouse gases, as temp increases less can be stored in bodies of water, as temp increases thawing of soils releases more and this will continue. Part of the Man-made theory is that based on ice cores we have never seen greenhouse gases in the current concentrations. Well there is a problem with that claim also. It is comparing what we believe from historical readings in the ice cores to readings by actual devices currently. In order for ice cores to contain information for a period of time there needs to be more ice produced than melted. As the ice caps and glaciers melt, they don't melt from the inside, they melt from the outside, so for each cycle once the temp rises to a point where the ice caps and glaciers start melting, they are no longer capturing "data". If you look at the ice cores, you will see that in the previous cycles the readings increase until a point where they level off before starting to drop again. To relate that to electronics which I deal with, they are Cropped Sine waves. So we can't say the levels are highest, only highest observed which is a big difference.
Common sense tells me that over one billion automobiles being driven on the worlds roads would probably effect the weather by more than 0%.
Slightly more than flying a ****load of people around the globe for climate summits...but not by much.
Trump and his family tweeting like teenage girls is embarrassing and is making me can't stand any if them. Debacle. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
The most common greenhouse gas, water vapor guess we ignore that because we can't find a way to tax or regulate it.
