• 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!

All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed

This is not witch burning, the Science which the National Climate assessment is based upon, was always hypothetical.
The science was never settled. All that can be said with any certainty is that Human activity is changing the climate.
The exact Human activity would be something that allows more of the available sunlight to reach the surface,
like clearing air pollution. What does not change the amount of sunlight reaching the surface are greenhouse gases.
 
Pyrite said:
...Overall, we rate National Geographic a Pro-Science source based on proper sourcing and accurate, factual science coverage....

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Credibility Rating: HIGH...
Click to expand...
Let's consider some facts then!
A steel ship sunk at the waters edge will be almost completely broken down in one century,
with little remaining after two centuries.
As salt water rose past the base, the statue of liberty's frame would become compromised,
Nasa Says Antarctica is loosing 136 gigatonnes of ice per year and contains 24,380,000 gigatonnes.
24,380,000 Gigatonnes/ 136 Gigatonnes per year, = 179,264 years.
By the time the sea levels rose on the statue of Liberty, it would not exists!
The National Geographic image is pure hyperbole.
Also long before 179,264 years had passed, we would enter another glacial phase,
with could happen from now to the next 5000 years. Cooling is a MUCH greater concern than warming.
 
Pyrite said:
...Overall, we rate National Geographic a Pro-Science source based on proper sourcing and accurate, factual science coverage....

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Credibility Rating: HIGH...
Click to expand...

Dummy (HIGH) links don’t make a very good argument.
 
Steve Case said:
The same National Geographic that put The Statue of Liberty over her waist in sea water on the magazine’s cover all those years ago?
That National Geographic?
You don’t know propaganda when it’s right under your nose.

Pyrite said:
...Overall, we rate National Geographic a Pro-Science source based on proper sourcing and accurate, factual science coverage....

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Credibility Rating: HIGH...
Click to expand...
Steve Case said:
Dummy (HIGH) links don’t make a very good argument.
Click to expand...
Post #103

```````````````````````````

Look up. You questioned the credibility of the National Geographic.

I took your post seriously and provided evidence that the National Geographic is indeed a reliable and credible source.

(And I quoted your post in my response.)

That you don't accept the Factual and Credibility Ratings is on you.

BTW: you might benefit from reading the rules re posting on this forum. And from reviewing the instances in which commas are used (required).
 

Your two links, (HIGH) and (HIGH…) still don’t work.
 
Steve Case said:
Your two links, (HIGH) and (HIGH…) still don’t work.
Click to expand...
Post #105

???

They're not "links", of course. I haven't presented them as such.

They're exactly what they look like: copies and pastes of excerpts from the site that assesses bias, factual reporting, and credibility on the part of media sources.

If you want the link to that site, all you have to do is say so, and I'll be happy to provide it.
 
Telling you that your dummy links are in fact dummies and they don’t work and
don’t prove anything is an invitation for you to put up some links that do work.
 
Republican politicians not just ignore the science but also the voters. That around 66-74% of Americans support action on climate and even higher percentage globally.

The Future of Climate Activism - The 89 Percent Project

89percent.org

While even Republican voters sees the benefits with renewable energy.

Republican states are going strong on solar and wind, but not for the climate

People are building clean energy for economic and energy security reasons, and that's fine.
www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com
 
The problem with the national Climate assessment, is that it is based on a false premise.
The bases of the concept that added CO2 causes warming is invalid, and as such any report beginning with
that assumption is a waste of taxpayers money.
 
longview said:
The problem with the national Climate assessment, is that it is based on a false premise.
The bases of the concept that added CO2 causes warming is invalid, and as such any report beginning with
that assumption is a waste of taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

Global climate change have been known and studied by a long time including by fossil fuel companies.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.
news.harvard.edu

Leading to overwhelming evidence that the present warning is caused by human emissions of CO2.

IPCC science report: climate change unequivocal, human influence at least 95% certain

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented its latest report on climate science today. The report says it is...
climate.ec.europa.eu

That it's decades of lobbying and propaganda that have led to that Republican politicians continue to oppose action on climate change.

Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one » Yale Climate Connections

During the latest midterm election cycle, the fossil fuel industry paid at least $359 million for federal campaign donations and lobbying.
yaleclimateconnections.org

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming.
www.bbc.com

Decades of propaganda to erode the trust in science and facts from fossil fuel companies have also led to a president that bases his MAGA movement on lies.

Poll: Persistent Partisan Divide Over ‘Birther’ Question

Seventy-two percent of registered Republican voters still doubt President Obama’s citizenship, according to a recent NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll.
www.nbcnews.com



Donald Trump repeats baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio

Donald Trump claimed immigrants in a small Ohio city were eating pets, but there’s no proof of this.
www.bbc.com
 

Again if you think there is empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming, cite and quote that evidence now?
So far you have refused to cite and quote this empirical evidence you claim is overwhelming.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Global climate change have been known and studied by a long time including by fossil fuel companies.
Click to expand...
Then they know it started 25000 years ago.
Stupid actions should be opposed. Misanthropic actions should be as well
The climate doomsday cult wasn't long for this world
 
longview said:
Again if you think there is empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming, cite and quote that evidence now?
So far you have refused to cite and quote this empirical evidence you claim is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

The evidence for global warming caused by human emissions of CO2 is overwhelming.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
news.cornell.edu

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of
science.nasa.gov
 
Agreeing studies that Humans are causing climate change is not evidence that added CO2 is causing warming.
Also the NASA link does not have any empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
The problem is that you do not know what empirical (Observed) evidence is!
The CERES instruments were put up on satellites to validate the hypothesis, but invalidated it.
 
Where is your evidence for this grand conspiracy?
 
longview said:
In this case the anti-science are the people working on the National Climate Assessment, who continued down the
CO2 driven climate path, even when 24 years or data say that is not what is happening.
Click to expand...
Haha! Are you still at this? You're funny!

I thought we went into detail about why this was wrong. But anyway, carry on.
 
Actually, there is extensive empirical evidence that added CO₂ causes warming, and NASA presents it clearly—direct measurements of CO₂ levels, lab-confirmed infrared absorption properties, satellite data showing less heat escaping to space (especially in CO₂-specific wavelengths), global temperature records, etc, etc.... all converge on the same conclusion. The CERES satellite data, far from disproving the greenhouse effect, supports it by showing a growing energy imbalance consistent with CO₂-driven warming (see Loeb et al., 2021). Scientific consensus doesn’t replace evidence—it reflects decades of consistent, observable, peer-reviewed measurements. If you’re claiming CERES "invalidated" climate science, you’ll need to cite a peer-reviewed source—none exist that support that claim.
 
Sweden said:
The continued existence of the world is not dependent on the USA or its *National Climate Assessment' boondoggle.
Click to expand...

The Earth is an organic entity. Just like any other organic entity. Just like single cell creatures, bugs, fish, people. It has a defensive system too. There is a big picture at work here

We are not coexisting with this entity we live upon and it will react to us. Just as our bodies react to a germ. It will eradicate us. What do you think these super bugs and other things threatening our existence are?

You are tempting extinction. Don’t think it’s not possible. We’ve had five major extinction level events on the earth. Don’t presume there won’t be a sixth and we are incapable of triggering it.

By 2050 there will be 10 billion of us on this rock. If the earth decides that’s too many it will shake us off just like a person would shake off a cold.
 
Except that CO2 can only directly change the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), and that portion of the spectrum is decreasing energy not increasing.
 
longview said:
the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), and that portion of the spectrum is decreasing
Click to expand...
If the OLR is decreasing, and ASR remains the same, the Earth's energy level is increasing.

EEI = ASR - OLR
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If the OLR is decreasing, and ASR remains the same, the Earth's energy level is increasing.

EEI = ASR - OLR
Click to expand...
Sorry OLR is increasing, when the hypothesis says it should be decreasing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…