• 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!

Japan just recorded its earliest cherry blossom bloom in 1,200 years. Scientists warn it's a symptom of the larger climate crisis

If all you wanted to do is "discuss" climate change would be one thing but what the left is pushing has nothing to do with Climate Change. The graduates from the school of Moonbattery think the Green New Deal is all about fighting climate change but the truth is its a green-glossed Trojan horse designed to increase government control over the economy. One thing the left has gotten really good at is creating a crisis so they can present a solution that promotes more government control over all our lives. Recently I heard a graduate from the school of Moonbattery declare white privilege is the root cause of the climate crisis. So now evidently the left is combining the so called climate crisis with racism. But the best one this week comes from the graduates of the school of Moonbattery in Oregon who are having a discussion over using the symbol of a tree may be racist because of the tree's use in lynchings. Wokeism is not enlightenment. It is looking like a mental disorder.

Conspiracy theory/denier talking points. Again: *YAWN*
 
Is there a specific reason you avoid answering my very simple and direct question?

Is here a specific reason why you avoid answering my very simple and direct question as to what climate scientists say is the primary cause of the present global warming? Why are you so afraid of this question and its answer?
 
I linked to a peer reviewed paper and also a official government site as recently as Monday. Then I responded to an earlier rant from you about my sources:

"Here are direct quote and links to some of the studies.

"Agricultural research has fostered productivity growth, but the historical influence of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) on that growth has not been quantified. We develop a robust econometric model of weather effects on global agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) and combine this model with counterfactual climate scenarios to evaluate impacts of past climate trends on TFP. Our baseline model indicates that ACC has reduced global agricultural TFP by about 21% since 1961, a slowdown that is equivalent to losing the last 7 years of productivity growth. The effect is substantially more severe (a reduction of ~26–34%) in warmer regions such as Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. We also find that global agriculture has grown more vulnerable to ongoing climate change."


"Previous ABARES research has shown that changes in climate conditions over the last 20 years have had an adverse effect on the productivity of Australian cropping farms (Hughes et al. 2017). ABARES most recent analysis finds that changes in climate over the period 2000 to 2019 (relative to the period 1950 to 1999) have had a negative effect on the profitability of broadacre farms in Australia, including both cropping and livestock sectors, as shown in Figure 6, Figure 7, and Table 1.

Controlling for non-climate factors, we find changes in climate since 2000 have reduced average annual broadacre farm profits by 22%, or around $18,600 per farm (see Table 1)."



While you have provide no sources to refute my sources."

LOL...

Using TFP. LOL...

Did you read this part from the third paragraph after the abstract: "Instead of focusing on crop yield or agricultural output, we rely on a measure of agricultural TFP."

I'll bet you don't even know what that means, but please note, they clearly say they are NOT focusing on crop yield.

LOL...Only the first is a peer reviewed paper, and I see no need to waste any more time of this.

"Here we rely on official TFP statistics, for which agricultural output includes crops and livestock, while inputs encompass labour, land, physical capital and materials."

 
LOL...

Using TFP. LOL...

Did you read this part from the third paragraph after the abstract: "Instead of focusing on crop yield or agricultural output, we rely on a measure of agricultural TFP."

I'll bet you don't even know what that means, but please note, they clearly say they are NOT focusing on crop yield.

LOL...Only the first is a peer reviewed paper, and I see no need to waste any more time of this.

"Here we rely on official TFP statistics, for which agricultural output includes crops and livestock, while inputs encompass labour, land, physical capital and materials."


It doesn’t make any difference. There is way more to the potential effects of AGW than just its effects on plants.
 
It doesn’t make any difference. There is way more to the potential effects of AGW than just its effects on plants.
TFP includes financial cost. You know, like inflation? Please show me in the study where they removed the increasing costs, out of the results.
 
TFP includes financial cost. You know, like inflation? Please show me in the study where they removed the increasing costs, out of the results.

There is way more to AGW than just its effects on plants.
 
LOL...

Using TFP. LOL...

Did you read this part from the third paragraph after the abstract: "Instead of focusing on crop yield or agricultural output, we rely on a measure of agricultural TFP."

I'll bet you don't even know what that means, but please note, they clearly say they are NOT focusing on crop yield.

LOL...Only the first is a peer reviewed paper, and I see no need to waste any more time of this.

"Here we rely on official TFP statistics, for which agricultural output includes crops and livestock, while inputs encompass labour, land, physical capital and materials."


You just like to waste people times and derail threads. That you demand that I provide peer review studies even if my sources had many direct links to studies. While after I provided a link to peer review study and a official government report you simply ignored my post and now one week later you had forgot my post and wrongly claimed that I never provide peer review source. Not only that but now in your response you only provide your own personal options without a singe source to back them up.

Also why do you according to yourself read Nature if you believe their peer review process is so bad that you can't simply dismiss their approved studies simply because you don't like what measure is used.

It can also point out that my other study was from Australian federal agency under the scrutiny of politicians that want to spend billions on propping up the fossil fuel industry. So that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the devasatting effects climate change has had on farming shows how overwhelming the evidences are.

 
We are speaking of the study. Not your fantasies.

I am speaking of those who point exclusively to plant growth to define the effects of AGW while carefully avoiding discussion of all the potentially devastating effects that it can cause in the long term. And that’s not my fantasy. That’s what your vaunted Science journal of the AAAS says. Do they have fantasies in that regard?
 
LOL...

Using TFP. LOL...

Did you read this part from the third paragraph after the abstract: "Instead of focusing on crop yield or agricultural output, we rely on a measure of agricultural TFP."

I'll bet you don't even know what that means, but please note, they clearly say they are NOT focusing on crop yield.

LOL...Only the first is a peer reviewed paper, and I see no need to waste any more time of this.

"Here we rely on official TFP statistics, for which agricultural output includes crops and livestock, while inputs encompass labour, land, physical capital and materials."

Damn Lord. Didn't you learn anything from all the debates you participated in where it was made clear that focusing on just yields doesn't prove anything about what climate change is or isn't doing to agriculture? Obviously not.
 
A chilly week in April was wtf here in Miami.
 
I finally got around to looking into this. I didn't find a full article access to the paper, but according to the abstract, it was warmer in the 10th century than it is today.
The reconstructed tenth century March mean temperatures were around 7 degrees C, indicating warmer conditions than at present. Temperatures then fell until the 1180s, recovered gradually until the 1310s, and then declined again in the mid-fourteenth century.​


So who was recording Japanese cherry blossom growth all those centuries in the past that make todays seem so terrifying ? 🤔
 
Is here a specific reason why you avoid answering my very simple and direct question as to what climate scientists say is the primary cause of the present global warming? Why are you so afraid of this question and its answer?

I answered it. The primary cause of warming on our planet the the Sun.

Are you saying that the experts you respect deny this?
 
I answered it. The primary cause of warming on our planet the the Sun.

Are you saying that the experts you respect deny this?

The experts say that the primary cause of today’s global warming increase in the atmosphere is human-produced CO2.
 
The experts say that the primary cause of today’s global warming increase in the atmosphere is human-produced CO2.
But simply saying that the forcing from increases in greenhouse gasses is causing the majority of the warming,
is not the same as agreeing with the entire suite of catastrophic predictions from the IPCC and others!
The two things are not one in the same!
 
But simply saying that the forcing from increases in greenhouse gasses is causing the majority of the warming,
is not the same as agreeing with the entire suite of catastrophic predictions from the IPCC and others!
The two things are not one in the same!

Flogger is the one who is claiming that it is the sun, not human-produced CO2, that is the primary cause of the increased temperature pattern on this planet. He is the one you need to talk to in order to correct his misinterpretation.
 
Flogger is the one who is claiming that it is the sun, not human-produced CO2, that is the primary cause of the increased temperature pattern on this planet. He is the one you need to talk to in order to correct his misinterpretation.
It all starts with the sun for sure, no sunlight, Earth is a frozen dark rock, without life.
We should not downplay the contribution of insolation, and the changes therein,
perhaps as much as .2C of the recent warming could have been from only the added light reaching the ground, since 1990.
 
Is here a specific reason why you avoid answering my very simple and direct question as to what climate scientists say is the primary cause of the present global warming? Why are you so afraid of this question and its answer?
Please show me 10 papers that scientists explicitly say that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming. I think you will only find that in papers by Michael Mann. He is a real tool for the agenda. Even as much as James Hansen wants to make such claims, he never does in his papers.

Your problem is you are listening to what the pundits say, and lie about the papers.

The papers in general, never, ever say such things. They will imply such things, but never make such scientifically inept claims.
 
Please show me 10 papers that scientists explicitly say that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming. I think you will only find that in papers by Michael Mann. He is a real tool for the agenda. Even as much as James Hansen wants to make such claims, he never does in his papers.

Your problem is you are listening to what the pundits say, and lie about the papers.

The papers in general, never, ever say such things. They will imply such things, but never make such scientifically inept claims.

What does AAAS say about the cause of the present global warming?
 
Please show me 10 papers that scientists explicitly say that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming. I think you will only find that in papers by Michael Mann. He is a real tool for the agenda. Even as much as James Hansen wants to make such claims, he never does in his papers.

Your problem is you are listening to what the pundits say, and lie about the papers.

The papers in general, never, ever say such things. They will imply such things, but never make such scientifically inept claims.

Pundits again. And again and again and again.
Please show me 10 papers the scientists explicitly say that CO2 is NOT the primary cause of the present global warming. You can’t. I doubt that you can even produce one, let alone ten.
 
Please show me 10 papers that scientists explicitly say that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming. I think you will only find that in papers by Michael Mann. He is a real tool for the agenda. Even as much as James Hansen wants to make such claims, he never does in his papers.

Your problem is you are listening to what the pundits say, and lie about the papers.

The papers in general, never, ever say such things. They will imply such things, but never make such scientifically inept claims.

Actually, I probably could find ten papers that fit that format if I wanted to spend the time to do so, but the fact is that the “show me 10 x” is a tired old chat/debate trick to deflect from direct discussion of the topic. It only lessens your credibility, not mine.
 
What does AAAS say about the cause of the present global warming?
I haven't looked recently, but it's probably a typical canned statement by the bureaucrats at the top of the organization.

Not a peer reviewed paper.

Only peer reviewed papers matter. Not what someone says who has effectively become a politician.
 
One person's viewpoint, and it isn't explicitly saying we are responsible for most: “The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.

Again, one person's opinion.
 
Pundits again. And again and again and again.
Please show me 10 papers the scientists explicitly say that CO2 is NOT the primary cause of the present global warming. You can’t. I doubt that you can even produce one, let alone ten.
Nor am I going to look.

The skeptical scientists are not dumb enough to disrespect science like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom