DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

I'd like to research those numbers but I'm fresh out of tinfoil. No hat, no access to INFOWARS.

Try Joe Bastardi. There are plenty of other sites you could try too, like the EPA to see when it was posted. You wouldn't even have to get close to Alex jones.

It's nice to see who'd prefer to remain willfully ignorant.

They don't deny it because they can't it's a fact. pure and simple. As for the accelerated rate, they can't prove that either. They are guessing. The have ZERO proof. Do I believe ma may be helping it along.... sure I do. Do I believe it's going to happen no matter what we do.... sure I do.

I believe the majority of scientist and Al Gore.

OCD don't look good in his tin foil hat ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri...m=.ea43921ed309

New York Times guilty of large screw-up on climate-change story

The New York Times on Wednesday appended a correction to a story about a climate change study:

Correction: August 9, 2017

An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.

That correction, which sits at the foot of the story, dutifully straightens out the record. Yet given the magnitude of the screw-up, it should sit atop the story, surrounded by red flashing lights and perhaps an audio track to instruct readers: Warning: This story once peddled a faulty and damaging premise.

That premise suggests that the Trump administration is stifling a damaging draft report — part of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment — with dire warnings about climate change. “The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration,” noted the lead of the article, which was written by Lisa Friedman.

• “A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.”

• “The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now.”

#LIES LIES AND MORE LIES TO FOLLOW ... THEY DIDN'T EVEN REDACT ALL THE BLATANT LIES!!!!!!!

As part of its corrective effort, the New York Times has pulled the language saying that “a copy of it was obtained by the New York Times,” as well as the mistaken assertion that it has “not yet been made public.” Even so, the article continues to carry this line: “Another scientist involved in the process, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, said he and others were concerned that it would be suppressed.” As well as this one: “Scientists say they fear that the Trump administration could change or suppress the report.”

Though it may be the case that certain scientists maintain such fears, that’s a pretty tough position in light of the fact that the report “was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January” and publicized by the New York Times in August.

...

The real problem is that you're unwilling to even read an opposing view. Why would you continue to believe those people when none, and I repeat, NONE, of their predictions have come true? It's a scam, and your lip is securely on the hook. Unlike a fish, you love being on the hook.

You are disputing people who have dedicated their education, career and working lives to researching climate? The VAST majority of scientists all over this globe believe it to be happening and believe that man has accelerated the rate of warming.

With all due respect, who are you to deny the experts who have dedicated themselves to gathering data, researching, comparing and contrasting via various samples, experiments, reports, data, stats etc. etc.?

I too am not a Climatologist nor Environmental Scientist as with anything that is out of one's expertise you refer to the experts. So, I will certainly listen to and respect the vast majority of these experts scientific opinions and debate over the minority of scientists who may disagree OR, regular people who deny and who aren't Climatologists or Environmental Scientists and probably would struggle reading the official scientific reports, data, stats, papers etc..

Quite simply, those 'scientists' have been bought. If they were so good at their jobs, why have none of their predictions come true? Why don't their computer models work? Why have they been caught so many times masaging data to fit their preconceived conclusions? That tends to be called acedemic fraud in most circles. Concensus does not equal science.

In another light, what ever happened to the left's mantra of 'question authority'? It's turned into, 'yes, I will gladly eat this excrement you're feeding me, and please, sir, may I have another'.

I thought they had something in their 'global warming' days, but then I started to question what they were shoveling. I researched. I read. I became a sceptic from that. This is a scam.

Refresh my memory, what happened with Al Gore's doomsday clock?

No, that isn't what I am saying. All you have to do is go back, read my post to know what I am saying.


Don't waste my time with your stupid replies if you don't even read what I said.

So Erik...you are telling me that you will read this scientific report and still come to the conclusion that it is a scam?

http://www.ametsoc.net/sotc2016/StateoftheClimate2016_lowres.pdf

Erik, I've actually read quite a bit of the opposing view. I am familiar with your side of the story and I will say that some of the points make sense and I can see how a person could dismiss much of the climate change hoopla as devoid of evidence when discounting the science.

I personally believe the climate change argument, rather natural or manmade I believe what I see, what those (the majority) that work in the field say, and the devotion of men like Gore to this 'cause'.

I do however like watching you bang your head against the wall when you think I'm making uneducated statements. I'm no rube being duped. I simply have a varying view and firmly believe it is real. I am not 100% convinced it's manmade (being caused by humans) but I still believe it is happening.

That said I feel strongly that the change my side want to make will help us as a species even if it IS FAKE.

But just so you know, I respect your right to your opinion on this and other things. I just like to stir the pot and watch guys like you boil over from time to time.

First of all, when I started writing against the 'global warming' crap, it was because of several simple facts I had learned. I'm not going to link them, as they are hard to find. One of the first suspicions I had against this scam is the fact that it's hard to find sceptical views.

A lot of the science you refer to are extrapolated readings. In other words, guesses. There were also huge omissions. The hockey stick graph all the believers used to beat people over the head with as proof omitted the mideval warm period, when it was warmer than now. It also omitted the Maunder minimum, when the temps dropped significantly. That alone should make anyone question the science.

There have been recent surveys of weather sites that were used in gathering temp data that showed the sites should be invalidated. Sites have been found on concrete tarmacs at airports, some were painted black. Sites were located next to building sized air handlers. Some sites hadn't been calibrated in years. To add to this, data has been faked, exaggerated, and just flat out made up. This is not science, but an agenda.

Yes, the temps increased from 1980 to today, but they also increased the same percentage on other planets in our solar system. Also, ice cores show that co2 follows temps, it does not preceede it. Add to those facts that more co2 means life, which means better fed people, and history showing us that humans thrive in warm periods and die in cold ones, it leaves me to believe that this is a huge scam.

Lord Monkton has shown in his rsearch, that if we use the numbers that the climate believers have given us, that we are all doomed and no change will help at all. He says this is due to the exaggeration of the numbers provided by the believers and their predictions.

Joe Bastardi, who I often recommend, has found three separate cycles of weather, sun production, and sun spots. When all are high we get high temps, and low temps when they align on the low side. The weather and climate are cyclical, as they should be.

This climate change scam should also have noted that the people most prominent in pushing the scam set up an exchange to sell air. When did they become the owners of carbon that they could sell in the first place? Who sold them carbon or clean air to sell back to others?

To summarize my thoughts, have the temps been rising since 1980? Yes, but 1980 was also the coldest year of the century. Temps have been rising since the Maunder minimum. Has it been warmer than now in recent history? Yes, with both the Roman warm period and the mideval warm period, which were not man made. Do those two events show that these warming/cooling periods are cyclical? Yes, it also shows that governments are more than willing to use the church of climatology to control people, much like rulers anointed by God used belief to control people in the past.

Do some research, and see what is going on for yourselves. I believe we should be good stewards of our lands, but we should not cut off our noses to spite our faces, nor allow those pushing a scam to get rich on the backs of those they consider peasants.

The planet has been far warmer long before man walked the earth. Science tells us this.

The planet has been cooler long before man walked the earth. Science tells us this.


My question that I don't think even Al Gore can answer is: What's the global thermostat supposed to be set at?

Who gets to determine what temperature it is supposed to be?

How do we regulate the global temperature? By what means?


I would like man to leave as little a environmental footprint as we can when it comes to global warming or climate change, however, I am more concerned about how we pollute our planet (something well within our control) than ice melting.

Considering that they've never had accurate readings in central Africa, and Australia has recently forced their weather scientists to correctly report temps, greatly lowering their original faked readings, I'd say that report is incorrect and a load of bunk.

Seriously? you can say that with a straight face.. When that was the belief Science had less to do with it than superstition or some sailors belief system.... Silly comment...Just silly.

I'm not a climatologist.. Pretty far from it really.

But, when I go to the doctor and he says, You have cancer,,, I don't dismiss it just because I don't want to hear it or because it's not convenient. I listen...

But apparently that's not enough. Climate change means that we have to change,,, any time we have to change, it costs money,,, we have to adapt and that costs money.

Business and industry don't like hearing that. So they spend a ton of money to prove it wrong.. Then they find out it's not fake and the panic takes over. Then we elect an idiot puppet that will do whatever wall street wants him to do.

Oh well,,, I'm 65, I won't be here to really feel the effects of the things we do today.

Hell, we all might be gone if the idiot in charge keeps acting as he does towards allies.

If doctors were diagnosing cancer in everyone because they didn't fully understand it, would you be ok with that diagnosis? To use your analogy, that is what is happening with the climate 'science'.

They have changed numbers to fit their theories. They have ignored data or omitted data that doesn't fit their models. They proclaim falsehoods, like 'warmest year in recorded history' when they know it's false.

No, that is not what's happening at all..

What your saying is that those that believe in Climate change have changed things to fit their narrative, but you don't seem to be allowing that those that disagree with Climate changes have done the same.

I read it....Your explanation about how ice melts faster when it's thinner, to explain away the accelerated global warming that is partially caused by a 30-40% increase of green house gasses since the industrial age is laughable. But whatever.

I say that because they have. The so called 'climate scientists' have been caught many times changing figures to fit the or narative. On the natural causes side, if they had been found faking results, that would have been broadcast to the heavens as the biggest fraud ever.

I honestly don't mean this in a disrespectful nor sarcastic way but...I am assuming you are not a climatologist nor scientist so, on that assumption your opinion holds no weight with this subject. Correct me if I am wrong and your education and career is actually in the science/environmental/climate field. However, you are 100% entitled to your opinion.

Until otherwise proven I will listen to the scientific experts who are doing all the work in the field and with the data they are gathering.

I don't know about all that, but yeah, it's been proven that some - many? - of the temp. recording places were in fact on cement, in cities or on buildings right beside a/c systems, etc.

Convenient truth.

Doesn't matter. You've already admitted that you won't listen to the scientists that don't agree with your established viewpoint. My parroting of their findings wouldn't change your mind anymore than their research. Are you a qualified Climatologist with enough smarts to interpret the findings you agree with?

Bad arguement.

Nope. But, I am going to have to trust the overwhelming majority of experts, Climatologists and Environmental Scientists who agree that this is happening and that man has had an impact. Why do I put trust in them? Because the majority of scientists agree.

I don't think there's any question of "global warming" in the last 100 years.

No doubt.

But,

1) It's only 100 years of reliable data,
2) The Earth has always had very variable long-term weather patterns, and
3) What's the proof man has had any effect on weather patterns?

I'm always a little wary of claims by experts who stand to benefit from their claims.

I look at it as it doesn't matter where we have been, it is where we are at and where we are going. Cities like Miami Beach have already had "sunny day" events where they have experienced water rise that has resulted in flooding. Miami like many other coastal towns have experienced "king tides"-the highest non storm tides of the year. Miami had a king tide event in September 2015 that had a water rise of 2.2 feet that led to substantial flooding. If and I am saying if we are to experience a ocean rise of about 2 feet in the next 50 years, the article I saw notes that about 50 percent of south beach will be under water. There is 6 trillion dollars of built investment in south beach. What is Miami doing about the more frequent sunny tides and the possibility of higher king tides and the result of higher water level from storms. They are through bonds levied against customer sewage rates raising about 400-500 million to install 80 pumps, revise seawalls and raise some streetscape by 2 1/2 feet. And they know that that will not fix all areas and the pumps and streetscape will only hold off the water for about 30 years. And they feel that south Florida could still flood from the west through the everglades. The cost to upgrade the everglades-10 billion. The cost to upgrade the Miami wastewater plant-3 billion. The tide gauges show the actual data that the water is getting higher. When the local governments go to Gov Scott or the feds for impact studies or funds for future projects, they are largely dismissed.

If Miami keeps getting more substantial sunny day and king tides, are insurance companies and mortgage companies going to want to touch a risky proposition?
And there are going to be so many problems with sewage contamination into the oceans and bays, saltwater contamination inland, the impact on marine life and then loss of tourism.

And if you get away from the news on the far right or far left and browse local newspaper articles, there are other towns that are already experiencing some of the same problems. The keys have already seen some tidal flooding, so has New Orleans, Boston, New York to name a few.

You trust the overwhelming majority of experts that have been proven to use falsified data?

Sorry, but there's no hope for you. Concensus is not science, it's a conspiracy.

Just curious Erik .. like i said earlier I don't know enough to talk intelligently about it ... u may or may not be able to answer these but if i don't ask u have no chance to answer them .... *L* pretyy much been my life philosophy on questions ...

1. Why would the scientist falsify this info? .. what do they gain? ..

2. Obviously business pollution is the main contention here ... any clue how many other variables they've included in their studies and if so how much of an affect it has .. such as ...

- the population growth
- loss of forests through logging and fires

anything else u might know of please ad

Just my $.02

But Erik and others argument has a huge flaw
Yes there have been some shady people who have manipulated things to suit their agendas or for their own gain. While others have poo pooed things because it would hurt their gains or not suit their agenda

But let me see if I can put this in a way that makes sense, because sometimes I confuse myself.

These are not accurate numbers because I dont know the actual numbers. But say you have 1000 scientists who do research and find through their research that man made global warming is a major problem. Well 995 of them are not shady and dont twist or fabricate any numbers, but 5 are shady and twist or fabricate numbers.

Now people who dont want to believe are going to scream and point at those 5 shady scientists and use that as a reason to discount the other 99.5 %

1. Grant money. If the people giving them money expect a certain outcome, they are providing that outcome to keep their grants. The other option is that the scientist have the same political slant. The results have been predetermined.

2. There is no "obviously". Science still hasn't proven that cfcs cause ozone depletion, even though that is the accepted 'science'. As for variables, unfortunately most of the variables in the climate change group has been the data. That should never happen.

I think the current warming that has taken place since the 1600s is due to natural cycles and sun intensity. Unfortunately, only time will prove one theory right.

So blame the idiots who built cities so close to the oceans. Don't blame the oceans.

Thanks for the civil reply ...

Join the "i confuse myself club" .. I've been a member for years .... *L* ...

I understood ...

Thanks again ...

And now the fallacy in your argument:

Your supposed numbers are as made up as the '98% of scientists' that support the agw theory. Money and political power have corrupted many in this scheme, while acceptance does all the rest. For many of these scientists, they are ostracized if they don't agree.

Thanks Erik ...

I "understand" what your saying but i really don't know what it means ... i just don't know enough about this to really comprehend what the other variables could or should be ..

I don't even know what cfcs means ... i hate being so ignorant on a subject ... I'm going to regret saying that ... thats ok, its the truth ...

U have any NON BORING links that u can share ... i get bored cause of the material and frustrated cause i don't really understand what the lingo means .. guess i gotta just keep on trying .. ihaven't failed until i quit ...

ChloroFlouroCarbons. The chemical was used for refrigeration and spray can propellant. It was the suspected culprit in the creation of the ozone hole over the south pole. That theory has never been proven, but a treaty was signed banning the sale, use, and production of cfcs based on a single scientific paper that proposed the theory.

I would provide links, but I'm typing on my phone, and it sucks for cut and paste.

Like Erik said, follow the money. I don't know where Kingo got the 995-5 numbers, but boy does that sound convincing! The folks blaming man for climate change the are full of claims like this....numbers and percentages manipulated or pulled out of thin air. The article mentioned earlier in this thread actually said that huge advances were made in proving that climate change is man made....like their goal is to prove man did it. Why isn't their goal to find out the actual cause
rather than just trying to prove man is to blame? I absolutely don't trust anyone sponsoring a study that gains financially by polluting the environment either.

I feel really bad for the ethical scientists trying to do things the right way, all 995 of them, lol.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/12/g...-prize-in-2007/

Global temperatures COOLER now than when Gore won Nobel Prize in 2007

AL GORE’S POOR TRACK RECORD - Chart by Meteorologist Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell Analytics. - An inconvenient truth: Global temps were warmer when Al Gore won the 2007 Nobel Prize than today, even after the 2015/16 super El Nino.


By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotAugust 12, 2017 10:09 AM with 0 comments

Via: https://www.thegwpf.com/al-gores-poor-track-record/
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi explains: “Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based on warnings of future events — the same future events that have not happened. The fact is that global temperatures from 2006-2007 while Gore was basking in the glory of his apocalypse-driven fame were warmer than they are now, and we are still falling off the Super El Niño peak. Additionally, much of the time in-between was lower than what it was in the run-up to ‘An Inconvenient Truth.'”

Neither you nor a local meteorologist named Joe Bastardi know anything about CO2. Your boy doesn't even understand how CO2 traps sunlight/energy in our atmosphere. He thinks it invalidates the first law of thermal dynamics. Your insentient rambling about the roman and medieval warm period shows just how little you know about GLOBAL warming. Neither the roman nor the midieval periods have shown an affect on global temperatures. These warm periods have seemed to just affected Europe and other parts of the northern hemisphere. Glaciers continued to grow as quickly during these "warm" periods as it does during the little ice age. All of these "facts" you post are nonsense, but since they've been spouted off on Fox News, you believe them and act like they have received any fact checking.

I said very clearly that it was just an example and I had no idea of the actual numbers. I just used round numbers that were easy to figure percentages.

But how did I know someone was going to argue about the numbers I used?