• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Govt Report on Impact of Climate Change Leaked

KLATTU said:
You are correct. The models predicting what the the temperatures will be haven't been very accurate. The predictions about what will happen if those temparutere rise are really just glorified wild ass guesses.
Click to expand...

Yep.

WAG and SWAG are the alarmists friends.
 

[h=1]Trump Disbands Climate Committee: Committee Vows to Continue[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall President Trump has disbanded a 15 person committee whose job was to interpret a 13 agency, 600+ page climate report, and tell the President what to do. But the credibility of the report is in tatters, after it was discovered that the authors edited out a highly embarrassing section from…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Trump Disbands Climate Committee: Committee Vows to Continue[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall President Trump has disbanded a 15 person committee whose job was to interpret a 13 agency, 600+ page climate report, and tell the President what to do. But the credibility of the report is in tatters, after it was discovered that the authors edited out a highly embarrassing section from…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Yep.

When they hide the inconvenient truth, why waste time with them?
 
Visbek said:
I'm not sure, I won't have time to read the whole thing right now. It's also apparently written for scientists, rather than the general public or policy makers.

That claim is on page 18, and compares 1901-1960 to 1981-2015.
Click to expand...

Which means increased precipitation will be great, when selecting a starting period with high drought.
 
longview said:
I think CO2 is the most likely candidate for taxation, and the only real danger is to our freedom and wallets.
It is not that added CO2 does not cause warming, it likely does, but the level of warming is still in question.
Click to expand...

The government would tax the air we breath if thay could.

Oh wait...

That's what they are trying, indirectly!
 
iguanaman said:
Where is all that soot coming from? Soot is made of carbon isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the solution isn't to stop producing CO2, rather the solution is to use modern technology to increase efficiency and eliminate the aerosols production.
 
iguanaman said:
Soot is part of AGW then since it is also man caused.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't credit China for making less dirty cal power plants. We should insist they make clean burning plants.
 
iguanaman said:
Semantics are your specialty.
Click to expand...

Words have meaning, and if you choose to display such ignorance after being corrected, people will laugh you off and ignore you.
 
Visbek said:
NYT has an article with 9 takeaways from the report. These include:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/08/climate/nine-takeaways-climate-report.html

• Western states are warming faster than the rest of the US (though it's not as bad as the Dust Bowl)

• Hurricanes are getting wetter

• Despite slight increases in precipitation in the West, California is likely to see more droughts (as snowpacks, which constitute most of CA's water supply, recede due to warming)

• Precipitation is getting more extreme, mostly in the Northeast

• Flooding due to sea level rise is already a problem (e.g. Miami, duh)

• Human activity is definitely having a major influence on climate

• We're likely in for surprises, such as simultaneous extreme weather events, or crossing tipping points
Click to expand...
We've seen this before.

-Pending Ice Age
-Global Starvation
-The end of snow in the northern hemisphere
-North Pole Ice Free by 2013
-Polar bear extinction
-50 million climate refugees by 2010 due to flooding
-Dire increase in both frequency of hurricanes and severity
-Increase of wildfires and tornadoes
-Nations wiped off the map by the year 2000

and on and on and on...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Words have meaning, and if you choose to display such ignorance after being corrected, people will laugh you off and ignore you.
Click to expand...

And you are without any basis for any of those insults. I must be getting under your skin. Can't take the heat?:lol: You better get used to it, every year it gets hotter.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but the solution isn't to stop producing CO2, rather the solution is to use modern technology to increase efficiency and eliminate the aerosols production.
Click to expand...

Human use of fossil carbon is upsetting the natural carbon balance why shouldn't we worry about that? Let's use "modern technology" to end our dependence on fossil carbon. It will run out eventually why not work toward ending it's use now?
 
VanceMack said:
We've seen this before.

-Pending Ice Age
-Global Starvation
-The end of snow in the northern hemisphere
-North Pole Ice Free by 2013
-Polar bear extinction
-50 million climate refugees by 2010 due to flooding
-Dire increase in both frequency of hurricanes and severity
-Increase of wildfires and tornadoes
-Nations wiped off the map by the year 2000

and on and on and on...
Click to expand...

In the fables, there was only one Chicken Little and one Boy who cried Wolf. In climate change, there are hundreds. Maybe thousands.

Goes to prove, life is stranger than fiction...
 
iguanaman said:
And you are without any basis for any of those insults. I must be getting under your skin. Can't take the heat?:lol: You better get used to it, every year it gets hotter.
Click to expand...

You?

Under my skin?

What a comedian...

No, attempting to use proper words is just a pet peeve of mine.

Words have meaning!

I understand the schools in these past couple decades are really letting us down, so I am tolerant to a point.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Human use of fossil carbon is upsetting the natural carbon balance why shouldn't we worry about that? Let's use "modern technology" to end our dependence on fossil carbon. It will run out eventually why not work toward ending it's use now?
Click to expand...

I agree that is a noble goal. But not at the cost of economic harm. CO2 is not enough of a problem to warrant any excessive spending, trying to mitigate it. Soot and other aerosols are though.
 
VanceMack said:
We've seen this before.

-Pending Ice Age
-Global Starvation
-The end of snow in the northern hemisphere
-North Pole Ice Free by 2013
-Polar bear extinction
-50 million climate refugees by 2010 due to flooding
-Dire increase in both frequency of hurricanes and severity
-Increase of wildfires and tornadoes
-Nations wiped off the map by the year 2000

and on and on and on...
Click to expand...

You've seen this stuff on TV.

But you haven't seen it in scientific literature.

That's the difference.
 
Threegoofs said:
You've seen this stuff on TV.

But you haven't seen it in scientific literature.

That's the difference.
Click to expand...
Before I point out the actual sources of those comments and allow you to make yourself look even more stupid than you usually do, would you like to deny those arent REAL alarmist predictions made by climate change scientists?
 
VanceMack said:
Before I point out the actual sources of those comments and allow you to make yourself look even more stupid than you usually do, would you like to deny those arent REAL alarmist predictions made by climate change scientists?
Click to expand...

Yep. No one stated that the arctic would be ice free in 2013. No one stated an ice age would be happening in the present day. No one predicted the end of snow in the northern hemisphere (!), some of the others are a bit squishy - numbers and intensity of hurricanes, flooding, refugees, are all pretty general and non time specific.

But please, enlighten us with your deep 'non-stupid' thinking on these matters. It will be a first.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yep. No one stated that the arctic would be ice free in 2013. No one stated an ice age would be happening in the present day. No one predicted the end of snow in the northern hemisphere (!), some of the others are a bit squishy - numbers and intensity of hurricanes, flooding, refugees, are all pretty general and non time specific.

But please, enlighten us with your deep 'non-stupid' thinking on these matters. It will be a first.
Click to expand...
You are lousy without someone telling you what to say. I know...I know...you dont have to know anything about anything you are posting about so long as the people you are quoting are 'experts'....right? Still...
-Pending Ice Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

But no one ever said that...right?

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteor*ologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and would be."

(We perhaps shouldnt be too harsh on some of them. Obamas Science czar...the same guy that in 1971 predicted the Ice Age also predicted a cataclysmic collapse if the US reached (gasp) 280 million people...by 2040.
 
VanceMack said:
You are lousy without someone telling you what to say. I know...I know...you dont have to know anything about anything you are posting about so long as the people you are quoting are 'experts'....right? Still...
-Pending Ice Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

But no one ever said that...right?

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteor*ologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and would be."

(We perhaps shouldnt be too harsh on some of them. Obamas Science czar...the same guy that in 1971 predicted the Ice Age also predicted a cataclysmic collapse if the US reached (gasp) 280 million people...by 2040.
Click to expand...

From your reference:

"This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] "
 
Threegoofs said:
From your reference:

"This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] "
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the 2008 erasure of the record that ultimately got Connolly banned from Wikipedia.
 
VanceMack said:
You are lousy without someone telling you what to say. I know...I know...you dont have to know anything about anything you are posting about so long as the people you are quoting are 'experts'....right? Still...
-Pending Ice Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

But no one ever said that...right?

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteor*ologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and would be."

(We perhaps shouldnt be too harsh on some of them. Obamas Science czar...the same guy that in 1971 predicted the Ice Age also predicted a cataclysmic collapse if the US reached (gasp) 280 million people...by 2040.
Click to expand...

The actual National Academy of Sciences report is a good read.
https://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt
Many have suggested that the report was not talking about global cooling, which is not directly mentioned,
but I think the second paragraph of the introduction eliminates the doubt of what their concerns were.
It is not primarily the advance of a major ice sheet over our farms and
cities that we must fear, devastating as this would be, for such changes take thousands of years to evolve.
Rather, it is persistent changes of the temperature and rainfall in areas committed to agricultural use,
changes in the frost content of Canadian and Siberian soils, and changes of ocean temperature in areas
of high nutrient production, for example, that are of more immediate concern.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
The actual National Academy of Sciences report is a good read.
https://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt
Many have suggested that the report was not talking about global cooling, which is not directly mentioned,
but I think the second paragraph of the introduction eliminates the doubt of what their concerns were.
Click to expand...
Whats funny is watching the spin and damage control that they are doing. They could just admit they were wrong. But then..if they were wrong and not just...well...right, from a certain perspective...then that might indicate that a decade of dire climate predictions were similarly 'wrong'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom