Then how do people get sunburnt on cloudy days?

Got any more brain busters?

It’s a good thing you guys aren’t beaver, BP would have you on a board.

Okay, I’m done….maybe

What ?

It doesn't eliminate the sun .....obviously......we'd all be dead

Except the climate change folks won’t let him trap beaver anymore…..

Ultra violet rays go through the clouds .
Cloudy days the sun doesn't reflect back into the sky.
That's why it's colder on clear nights, there's no cloud cover to hold the heat down.

I know. He keeps calling those smokestacks UV blockers. Maybe he’s being facetious

from one of the links Leroy posted..."Most of the trees that have died within the last century, and continue to die, regenerated during the Little Ice Age (1400-1850). Heavy snow accumulation is thought to have occurred during this period, giving yellow-cedar a competitive advantage on low-elevation sites in Southeast Alaska. Trees on these sites are now susceptible to exposure-freezing injury under warmer climate conditions. An abnormal rate of yellow-cedar mortality began around 1880, accelerated in the 1970s and 1980s, and continues today. These dates coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age and a warm period in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. On a finer temporal scale, recent analysis of 20th century weather station data from Southeast Alaska documented increased temperatures and reduced snowpack in late winter months, in combination with the persistence of freezing weather events in spring (Beier et al. 2008)."

"From the time crown symptoms appear, it takes 10 to 15 years for trees to die, making it difficult to associate observations from aerial surveys to weather events in particular years. Mortality has subsided somewhat in the last three decades."


so, during the Little Ice Age, many of these trees got their start as seedlings due to a competitive advantage from a heavy snow pack. as the Little Ice Age came to a close in 1850 (before widespread Industrial Age pollution), these trees began to decline (spiking in 1880). the decline accelerated 45-55 years ago and continues today.

where is the cause and effect nexus with human activity?

why would mortality have subsided somewhat over the last three decades? that doesn't make sense in the global warming paradigm.

I'm sure there is tons of MY TAX MONEY being spent to make sure that people think that man made climate change is scientific fact and that the science is settled. Which of course, neither is true.

You don't need to be an expert on anything to recognize faulty reasoning.

1) You're equivocating on your challenge to "provide a reason why humans are incapable of influencing the Earth." Nobody would make that claim. Human beings obviously alter their environment, thus impacting the earth to some degree, but so do beavers and locusts, carp, bacteria and so on.

Is it possible that humans have caused climate change? Yes, but it's also possible that I will be the first human being to step foot on Mars. You're using the possibility of one thing to argue for the probability of another. That leap from possibility (which has such a low bar) to probability is an equivocation.

2) The burden of proof is on you to show that human action, rather than normal cyclical climate patterns, is a significant cause of climate change, which is the assertion you’re trying to make. Neither you nor the scientific community have sufficiently made that case.

No politics needed!

Very well articulated, JKeith.

Below is a link that discusses the natural CO2 production and also the increased creation of CO2 and how the planet can not keep up with the production and remove the CO2 fast enough to maintain natural levels.

Bryce

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...19CWEoo&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1. I’ve asked if humans are capable of influencing these cycles. Finally, someone (you) admitted that it’s possible. And like I’ve stated several times already, the cycles are natural. In this case, I think it’s reasonable that humans have accelerated the cycles. Humans interact with the world in a much, much more complex way than a carp.

2. Like I’ve also stated, I’ve witnessed things that would suggest the acceleration influence is real. But I guess since I haven’t personally measured glaciers and core sampled the earth’s crust I’m not allowed to have an opinion or an open mind.

you can have as open of a mind as you like (some have such an open mind that their brain falls out).

but when a political movement says we have to upend centuries of economic practice to save the earth, they better come up with absolutely unimpeachable, real evidence that meets the Common Sense Smell Test (not faulty computer models, etc.) AND that treats every country the same.

I don’t make policy - foreign or domestic. Maybe Jkeith can provide us with some of his scientific papers to help influence policy and taxation since he’s so convicted on his pedestal.

Leroy, when you are reviewing the "scientific" papers that support your position, do me a favor...count how many times they use what I call weasel words: "may cause", "might result in", "likely to", "could lead to" etc. etc.

those aren't scientific conclusions...they are scare tactics.

do scare tactics have any place in a truly Scientific Paper?

The only way to know for sure is for man to leave the planet, climate zealots go first, after all the worlds going to end soon anyway.

Rat, I think it’s fair to say that nobody truly knows. But it seems foolish to me, as a land steward and outdoorsman who cares about the wild world I spend a lot of time in, to dig your heels in and say with absolute conviction that humans couldn’t impact our climate.

Again, big cities are a prime example of humans impacting temperatures and weather patterns in their “microclimate”. This is studied, measured, and proven.

But I’m not going to Mars. I’m going to write my Senator to push higher taxes on Jkeith, white marlin, and AntiGov so we can finally solve this problem.

Man probably has some slight, miniscule, impact on climate, but not enough to bankrupt the US. The real behind the scenes folks pulling the strings on the climate emergency are in it for the money. Oh and thanks for not mentioning me to your Senator, I pay enough taxes.

And of course nobody wants excessive taxation with no clear path to resolution. Isn’t that true for most of our tax money? For what it’s worth, I’m glad to not see Greta Thunberg in the news anymore.