• 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

What is inevitable, is that the climate will change, but there are real limits to how much it can change.
We know the energy reaching the surface is back up to roughly the 1950's level, but the
Sun has decreased it's output some since 1958. One more degree C might be possible, but more likely less than that.
the problem is determining what an actual global temperature change is, and will be when it happens.

Almost all the monitoring stations used are influence by land use changes, and it is impossible to correct that out of them with any usable, precision. Most these land use change are the Urban Heat Island Effect which can increase the daily average by as much as 10 C (18 F) over the natural terrain.
 
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 Right! :rolleyes: Only Lying Fox and Newsmax are the truthful ones....PLEASE!

Even National Geographic knows polar bears are struggling to survive,
Hmm. Appears that opinions differ on that point.

London, 27 February: 2023 marked 50 years of international cooperation to protect polar bears across the Arctic. Those efforts have been a conservation success story: from a population estimated at about 12,000 bears in the late 1960s, numbers have almost tripled, to just over 32,000 in 2023.

Despite this dramatic increase in polar bear populations, claims that their numbers are falling due to climate change still dominate most media coverage.​

Does an increasing population support the assertion of 'struggling to survive'?

Just looking at this graph:
PolarBearPopulationUpdates-2025-1536x1105.jpg

indicates large areas marked as 'data deficient'.
I think this probably most reflective of the actual state of the data than any other.

Oh, and you should be happy, no Fox or Newsmax sources used. ;)

guess they can't be trusted either according to you rightwingers.
 
Hmm. Appears that opinions differ on that point.

London, 27 February: 2023 marked 50 years of international cooperation to protect polar bears across the Arctic. Those efforts have been a conservation success story: from a population estimated at about 12,000 bears in the late 1960s, numbers have almost tripled, to just over 32,000 in 2023.

Despite this dramatic increase in polar bear populations, claims that their numbers are falling due to climate change still dominate most media coverage.​

Does an increasing population support the assertion of 'struggling to survive'?

Just looking at this graph:
PolarBearPopulationUpdates-2025-1536x1105.jpg

indicates large areas marked as 'data deficient'.
I think this probably most reflective of the actual state of the data than any other.

Oh, and you should be happy, no Fox or Newsmax sources used. ;)
Most of that is because we decided to stop shooting the bears from airplanes. BUT, as far as I know the population continues to increase.

One of the things to notice is, “The dogs that don’t bark anymore” a quick GOOGLE (News) search on “polar bears” turns up no claims that the bear population has decreased as we were repeatedly told fifteen years ago it was going to do.
 

The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country.

The move puts the future of the report, which is required by Congress and is known as the National Climate Assessment, into serious jeopardy, experts said.

Since 2000, the federal government has published a comprehensive look every few years at how rising temperatures will affect human health, agriculture, fisheries, water supplies, transportation, energy production and other aspects of the U.S. economy. The last climate assessment came out in 2023 and is used by state and local governments as well as private companies to help prepare for the effects of heat waves, floods, droughts and other climate-related calamities.

On Monday, researchers around the country who had begun work on the sixth national climate assessment, planned for early 2028, received an email informing them that the scope of the report “is currently being re-evaluated” and that all contributors were being dismissed....

“This is as close as it gets to a termination of the assessment,” said Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University who specializes in climate adaptation and was a co-author on the last climate assessment. “If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing’s moving forward.”...
Because obviously if you don't report it, it's not happening.

lol

Trump and his MAGA commies sure do love self-imposed ignorance.
 
Most of that is because we decided to stop shooting the bears from airplanes. BUT, as far as I know the population continues to increase.
OK

One of the things to notice is, “The dogs that don’t bark anymore” a quick GOOGLE (News) search on “polar bears” turns up no claims that the bear population has decreased as we were repeatedly told fifteen years ago it was going to do.
An interesting metric, which is telling me that there aren't all that many people writing about the polar bear population decreasing, or, those that are, aren't using well known SEO techniques to elevate search engines finding them.

I still think that 'data deficient' is probably the most accurate description of the data that's available.
 
Because obviously if you don't report it, it's not happening.

lol

Trump and his MAGA commies sure do love self-imposed ignorance.
I wish I knew how to convince you the facts. The scare of AGW has been a scam. Look at all the money devoted to it from almost all types of endeavors. Nobody want to let go of the cash cow. Follow the money.

The scientific facts, now clearly show, they are wrong.
 
Most of that is because we decided to stop shooting the bears from airplanes. BUT, as far as I know the population continues to increase.

One of the things to notice is, “The dogs that don’t bark anymore” a quick GOOGLE (News) search on “polar bears” turns up no claims that the bear population has decreased as we were repeatedly told fifteen years ago it was going to do.
Google "polar bear plight" and you will come up with a plethera of pages on their plight. I choose to trust sources like earth.org.

Currently, the global population of polar bears is estimated to hover between 22,000 and 31,000 individuals, a number that is alarmingly precarious due to the ongoing and rapid loss of sea ice habitat. Classified as “Vulnerable” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the future of polar bears hangs in a delicate balance, threatened not only by climate change but also by the increasing likelihood of human-bear conflicts as they venture further afield in search of food.

 
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.
 
Google "polar bear plight" and you will come up with a plethera of pages on their plight. I choose to trust sources like earth.org.

Currently, the global population of polar bears is estimated to hover between 22,000 and 31,000 individuals, a number that is alarmingly precarious due to the ongoing and rapid loss of sea ice habitat. Classified as “Vulnerable” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the future of polar bears hangs in a delicate balance, threatened not only by climate change but also by the increasing likelihood of human-bear conflicts as they venture further afield in search of food.

The problem with relying on such information, is you do not know the bias put into the selection of results it gives you.
 
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.
Please.... :rolleyes: Done with your nonsensical posts.
 
I wish I knew how to convince you the facts. The scare of AGW has been a scam. Look at all the money devoted to it from almost all types of endeavors. Nobody want to let go of the cash cow. Follow the money.

The scientific facts, now clearly show, they are wrong.
Climate change is real, it should be studied, we should understand the best we can the causes and see if there's anything we can do to lower our influences on it.
 
Climate change is real, it should be studied, we should understand the best we can the causes and see if there's anything we can do to lower our influences on it.
We do understand it enough to know the scare is a scam.
 
As I posted before, the only solution is to remove trump and Vance IMO. This is another terrible harm.
 
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.
As usual - it seems always - the right lies. The cover was to illustrate how much ice there is, showing the effect if it all melted. The right lies that they predicted that soon. What they ACTUALLY said was, by 2100 all the ice won't be close to melting, that would be expected to take at least 5,000 years. National Geographic as usual is right, and you are posting lies about them.

 
As usual - it seems always - the right lies. The cover was to illustrate how much ice there is, showing the effect if it all melted. The right lies that they predicted that soon. What they ACTUALLY said was, by 2100 all the ice won't be close to melting, that would be expected to take at least 5,000 years. National Geographic as usual is right, and you are posting lies about them.

Except the image itself is hyperbole, because there is almost zero chance that "all" the ice will melt.
 
We do understand it enough to know the scare is a scam.
Uh huh.

lol

Much like it's pointless to argue with a sov cit over the necessity of having a driver's license, it is pointless to argue with climate deniers when it comes to the data and science.

Have fun.
 
Figure of speech, if your source of information is ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. you are getting information that is run through a political filter. There are sources of information and data that are at odds with what the so called mainstream media is telling us. You can look up tide gauge records, historical tornados and hurricanes, polar bear populations, world food production statistics, precipitation records, forest fires, floods, droughts, whatever topic you’re interested in to find out if what the TV news is telling you is remotely true. It’s easy to look up what they said then and what they say now, what information is left out or exaggerated
Yes. The smug, arrogant US media nearly all deliberately misled the public about the state of Biden's mental health. For around two years only the NT Post told its readers the truth. For doing so it was viciously attacked by the White House and most of the press. Right here on DP posters were derided if they quoted the New York Post for using an 'unreliable source'.
 
Yes. The smug, arrogant US media nearly all deliberately misled the public about the state of Biden's mental health.
Its hard to continue to call organizations who behave this way as 'friends of the people'.
Do 'friends' mislead their supposed friends on a regular and ongoing basis?
I hardly think so, and most others would agree, the partisan blind exempted.

For around two years only the NT Post told its readers the truth. For doing so it was viciously attacked by the White House and most of the press. Right here on DP posters were derided if they quoted the New York Post for using an 'unreliable source'.
 
If climate change is real and caused by humans, which I do believe.

Why is there not an emergency mandate to shut down all drive through services? Look at all the ICE cars sitting, running in their most inefficient mode?
 
If climate change is real and caused by humans, which I do believe.

Why is there not an emergency mandate to shut down all drive through services? Look at all the ICE cars sitting, running in their most inefficient mode?
Because it isn’t true, that’s why. Well OK, there’s some truth to it.
What isn’t true is the claim that there’s a “Climate Crisis”
 
If climate change is real and caused by humans, which I do believe.

Why is there not an emergency mandate to shut down all drive through services? Look at all the ICE cars sitting, running in their most inefficient mode?
Can you consider that human caused climate change is real, but has almost nothing to do with CO2 or other greenhouse gases!
 

The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country.

The move puts the future of the report, which is required by Congress and is known as the National Climate Assessment, into serious jeopardy, experts said.

Since 2000, the federal government has published a comprehensive look every few years at how rising temperatures will affect human health, agriculture, fisheries, water supplies, transportation, energy production and other aspects of the U.S. economy. The last climate assessment came out in 2023 and is used by state and local governments as well as private companies to help prepare for the effects of heat waves, floods, droughts and other climate-related calamities.

On Monday, researchers around the country who had begun work on the sixth national climate assessment, planned for early 2028, received an email informing them that the scope of the report “is currently being re-evaluated” and that all contributors were being dismissed....

“This is as close as it gets to a termination of the assessment,” said Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University who specializes in climate adaptation and was a co-author on the last climate assessment. “If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing’s moving forward.”...

The US has become a country of witch burners. It's not exactly a comforting thought for those outside our borders and realize we have the capacity to end civilization. Not exactly a comforting thought for those of us inside its borders and come to the same realization.
 
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.
...Overall, we rate National Geographic a Pro-Science source based on proper sourcing and accurate, factual science coverage....

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Credibility Rating: HIGH...
 
Can you consider that human caused climate change is real, but has almost nothing to do with CO2 or other greenhouse gases!
That would be a violation of his programming protocols.
 
Back
Top Bottom