No but I'm not foolish enough to ignore the thousands of highly trained scientists that claim WE are contributing to the heating and CAN help control it


Thousands of so called trained scientists rely on governmental subsidies /grants,..they're not fools.

If you define many as about 1% then you might be close.

it is pretty obvious that humans are effecting the planet in ways that are not good..no $ to be made fixing the majority of those things thou. Plenty of government $ to be made from the global warming/climate change/green energy scams.

Who needs a scientist to decide ? Common sense is sufficient . Cars ,pavement ,buildings ,chem fallow ,roads ,roofs and on and on . 2+ 2 is 4 Chimate change is REAL

Long term cycles are climate, not weather.

Weather is what you experience when you step outside on any given day. In other words, it is the state of the atmosphere at a particular location over the short-term. Climate is the average of the weather patterns in a location over a longer period of time, usually 30 years or more.

Correct. Man has little to do with it, but it’s happening. But as a conservationist, I try to leave a better planet than I was born in.

Mankind is overly impressed with himself and his accomplishments. We may well be adding some to it but far from being able to control climate change. If we were so great we could make our own tornadoes or hurricanes and control them. Here we dig out clay gravel to build our roads. This was formed from glacial action. To have that it must have been a lot colder at one time and it seems back before man was around let alone cruising around in his autos and flying machines.

There have been studies done that have been proven was lies. The one holding the purse strings has a lot to do with the outcome most times.

I was reading about added supplementation of CO2 in green houses. Up to a point the more CO2 the better the plants produce. Which caused me to wonder if gov would force farmers to use less nitrogen and other inputs, wouldn't a lesser crop use less CO2 and produce less oxygen? So how would would holding back nutrients as in the Canadian situation be helping climate change?

Seems to me free enterprise and free markets work better than gov controls. Farmers use whats best for the crop verses the value needed for the increase.
Same way, animal rights wants to control the way farmers produce meat. If they let free enterprise work; someone who abuses their animals will not stay in a profitable situation and no longer be in business; thus self regulating without a gov watch dog.

I wonder if these have any effect on climate...
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcanoes/eruptions/statistics/2021.html

So we what, go back to walking and living in caves?

Greta, is that you? All praise and honor to Mother Earth and your goddess Gaia!
As a scientist, if I hear one more emotional light weight tell me that "Science says....."

2+2 is 4. There are cars and pavement and buildings upon the earth. So?
I'll not stand with these unscientific Mother Earth worshippers who want humans killed, animals worshipped, and the climate to be their calling.
Pagans all.
With a short knowledge of human history and pagan worship.
I'm no son of an ape so me and mine will praise the Creator, not the creation.
Folks.... well they are off worshipping whatever cause seems like the next bright light.
But they are all dark.

Climate wackos are lost people and lost people are never joyful anyway. Hot weather or cold.

Blessings,
Mark

It seems stewardship has become worship to many folks nowadays.

Correct JS.
The masses have taken conservation (remember that concept from decades ago?) and turned it into full scale worship because in the void of the human heart - with the masses steering clear of traditional faith - comes the quest for relevance and identity, people will conjure up any old thing to feel good about. Gender dysphoria, trans-identity, and so much more is rooted in a Gnostic (search for knowledge) paganism from the Greco-Roman era. It's all front and center.

We're just smarties these days, so the masses think they invented something new.
Hardly.
It's called the Illusion of Original thought.
It's ages old.
Play it again Sam.

Here's some common sense to go along with that.


Over 70% of earth is water, so less than 30% land.

Of that 30% , over half is untouched by man, so man is living on approximately 10-15% of earth's surface and a!it of that is ag land.

Its an awful big world and I don't buy that we're making a measurable difference in the scheme of things.

Our carbon output is basically the same as it was in 1960. China’s carbon output is more now than the US and Europe combined. It’s not about the climate it’s about government controlling your lives.

Not true at all not even close. I’d challenge you to do some research out of the mainstream. Lots of scientists know is BS.

Lets see......many square miles of floating plastic in the oceans, don't dare drink water from the main rivers without filtering it, the oceans close to populated areas have been fished out for the most part, nuke plant meltdowns...so many things could be turned around but no $ to be made doing that....plenty of $ to be made from govt for the 'climate agenda'. These idiots want to get rid of cattle, fertilized crops and they want to get rid of fossil fuels without any efficient means of replacing them..and you ask if it is a scam?????

LOL.

This

Why did the Earth heat up and cool many times before humans existed on it then? Your argument is moot. The Earth is still coming out of the last ice age. Any real scientist with an ounce of self respect, not taking government grants will tell you the exact same thing.

I know you will be way too lazy to read this entire article HERE So I will post this quick excerpt of it.

"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. "