“Climate Change” Is Like Being Mauled By A Crazed Mama Bear
Hat tip to Tom Nelson for providing this bit of madness
(Field and Stream) 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.
He is serious about the gun, and, the money quote
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.
Uh huh. The climate, which is always changing, is like an angry momma bear. And what action is Conservation Hawks taking? Unshockingly, nothing that actually Does Something. They want you to “educate yourself”, “write Congress”, and “write letters.” No mentions of actions within their own lives, such as giving up the use of fossil fueled vehicles.
As I wrote in the comments on the Conservation Hawks’ blog, nothing I could say would convince them they are wrong. I can provide all the science that’s out there. I can show them the history. I can show them what nature itself does. I can throw out links. I’d recommend starting with The Great Global Warming Swindle. But, Warmists have to do their own research, and see for themselves. Not believing in AGW will not invalidate their belief in the environment. It doesn’t for me. They want to believe Mankind is making it warmer, yet, they rarely walk the talk.
I could give a ton of links to sites that refute AGW, but, to what point? Warmists will just respond with something about them being disinformation sites funded by Big Oil and Big Coal. Instead, I recommend they start by looking at the data which supports their side, and ask themselves a few questions, such as
- does it follow the scientific method?
- why won’t they release the raw data?
- where is the data coming from?
- how can they give us temperature readings when they do not actually have measuring stations in many, many, many places?
- why has the global temperature remained pretty much flatlined even though CO2 has risen steeply over the past 15 years?
- why are those who are the most vocal on the issue the worst “carbon offenders”?
- why is there so much fraud and politics on the side of the Warmists?
- why are water vapor and the Sun discounted as having little to no influence on warming?
- why is this warm period different from the previous over the past 10,000 years, which were actually warmer?
- why is everything proven by your hypothesis?
- Why does your hypothesis revolve around circular logic?
- can YOU prove your hypothesis using the scientific method?
- can you tell us what the climate will do now, rather than in 50-100 years?
There are plenty more questions available, however, one thing to consider, it’s not up to Climate Realists to disprove the assertions of the Warmists, it’s up to the Warmists to prove their assertions using the scientific method.
How did we end up in a world where Big Gulps are being banned in New York while the welcome mat for potheads is being rolled out in Colorado? How...Read More
As the global warming farce collapses in ruins, with even a main perpetrator confessing that there has been no warming
Remember back to the early Bush 43 years, in which one of the Lefty talking points was that the world
Interestingly, countries didn’t spend hundreds of billions into the trillions to stop Hotcoldwetdry before the 17 year pause (NY Times)