# National Climate Assessment



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

The scientific report, which was produced by 13 federal agencies, describes an American future that is nothing short of apocalyptic due to rising threats from climate change. It suggests that no facet of life - whether it's global trade, national security or personal health - will be safe. And it says every nightmare scenario will feed into another: The disasters from climate change will start to compound each other, as will the consequences.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nation...warnings/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=60114252

For younger folks do you ignore this or try and figure out how to use the information. Example they say the ocean levels will be rising so rather than living at a lower elevation along the coast do you calculate what they say might happen with rising ocean levels when deciding where to buy your homestead/ bug out location.

Reduced rain in the southwest ( Southern California , Arizona , Utah, Nevada , New Mexico , all but eastern Texas and most of Oklahoma might lead you to consider avoiding the area.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The U.S., which is not a part of the Paris Climate Change Global Tyranny Agreement, has lowered its CO2 levels more than any other country. Sure, the plants don't like it, but who cares about plants.
Sure, the CO2 levels are lower than the historic baseline, but the convenience of humans is more important than the natural cycles of the planet.


----------



## Notold63 (Sep 18, 2016)

Just remember that if these people said that there wasn’t any warming of the temperatures or even if there was a decline in temperature, they all would be out of their jobs. Just saying.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I had a boss once who if you presented him with a problem he expected you to have some sort of answer. I didn't see any solution by all those agencies. What good does it do for the US to reduce emissions if the rest of the world does not? 

I noticed in the link they like to use the term "suggests" this or that. Where's the proof? jmo. Sounds like it is speculation at best.


----------



## Lunatic Wrench (May 13, 2018)

So basically we're all going to burn in hell, unless it freezes over.

I'm with 1skrew, if you can't offer some possible solutions, then shut your pie hole because you're certainly not helping.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> I had a boss once who if you presented him with a problem he expected you to have some sort of answer. I didn't see any solution by all those agencies. What good does it do for the US to reduce emissions if the rest of the world does not?
> 
> I noticed in the link they like to use the term "suggests" this or that. Where's the proof? jmo. Sounds like it is speculation at best.


We are the unwashed masses. They don't offer proof because we are too stupid to understand it.

Earlier, I was reading a NatGeo piece that explained how the Marshall Islands had to decide what to do to survive the upcoming ocean-rise due to billions of gallons of water from the melting of the icecaps. The two givens are the caps are melting and humans are to blame.

California is burning, and it is because of humans.

Hurricanes hit the coast, and that is because of humans.

More than humans, it is all Trump's fault.

The other big thing (besides California burning) is how the fall/winter is so cold, this year. What nobody is saying is it is because of the grand solar minimum. Why are they not telling the unwashed masses about it? Because that would point out the fact that we humans don't control the general climate.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Isn't this the same crock of horse hockey that has been debunked by the scientific community for some time now?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but without delving into the specific methodology we're getting another dose of the same crapola that has been being batted around for the last 50 Plus years.

Seems to me that in the 60's we were going into an Ice Age and now it's global warming again.

Sorry if I don't take this or your folks seriously:bs::bs::bs::bs:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Real Old Man said:


> Isn't this the same crock of horse hockey that has been debunked by the scientific community for some time now?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but without delving into the specific methodology we're getting another dose of the same crapola that has been being batted around for the last 50 Plus years.
> 
> ...


The Globalists assume we don't understand that 1- the world works in cycles and, 2- the world balances itself. More CO2? More plants to absorb it.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

FOOLISHNESS ALERT BELOW!

Nothing but nonsense ladies and gentlemen. Foolish nonsense.



RJAMES said:


> The scientific report, which was produced by 13 federal agencies, describes an American future that is nothing short of apocalyptic due to rising threats from climate change. It suggests that no facet of life - whether it's global trade, national security or personal health - will be safe. And it says every nightmare scenario will feed into another: The disasters from climate change will start to compound each other, as will the consequences.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nation...warnings/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=60114252
> 
> ...


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)




----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)




----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Hmmmm. The oceans are rising due to man made global warming? I live at 1200 feet above sea level and I have found fossils around here of sea shells. I think the oceans have been rising and falling for a long, long time. Long before our coal fired electric plants came online.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

In 4 billion years we have had 5 ice ages. Each one ended with global warming. Considering when temperatures on earth are high, they are also high on mars. So it’s either the sun or we have so much plant food it’s polluting the solar system. 

It’s the sun stupid. The sun burns at varying intensities. 8000 years ago forests existed where the Sahara Desert is today. Climate change is part of the rhythm of this planet.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Can anyone point me to any climate change research that isn’t funded by government for more government?


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

And the non sense has not even been followed up on one bit since presented. Meanwhile mainstream media USA ignore cold snap records made this week. Poor Al Gore, I mean RJames



Slippy said:


> FOOLISHNESS ALERT BELOW!
> 
> Nothing but nonsense ladies and gentlemen. Foolish nonsense.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

wouldn't be a report if the climate crap agenda wasn't part of overall globalization program - you'll see the same 2020 election propaganda until then >>>> expect a few heads to roll at the EPA and more FED funding $$$ to be cut ....


----------



## Lunatic Wrench (May 13, 2018)

Denton said:


> What nobody is saying is it is because of the grand solar minimum. Why are they not telling the unwashed masses about it? Because that would point out the fact that we humans don't control the general climate.


They are good about leaving this out along with other real actual true factual facts that don't fit their agenda.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

In other news: Thanksgiving Day will be coldest in over a century for millions in U.S.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

The climate is changing. It is the arrogance of mankind that presumes humans are to blame. 

Fangfarrier 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/i...2stsH_vhJxzZGnGKj_x5kwM_srezEolX_Sho_OVvX_JjY Another news source releasing information on the Governmnet Report.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

RJAMES said:


> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/i...2stsH_vhJxzZGnGKj_x5kwM_srezEolX_Sho_OVvX_JjY Another news source releasing information on the Governmnet Report.


This is horseshit and the post is nothing more than more spam from a poster who can never follow up with an intelligent basis for the supposed personal opinion.



fangfarrier said:


> The climate is changing. It is the arrogance of mankind that presumes humans are to blame.
> 
> Fangfarrier
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is one of the most accurate and factual statements that I have read in a while. "The arrogance of mankind" is the root of many facets of "the aganda".


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

More fake news.....Please refer to the "Climate change fraud" thread in the New forum for a long list of past lies....



> 'Embarrassing': Climate Expert Explains What's Wrong With The White House's New Climate Report





> "By presenting cherrypicked science, at odds w/ NCA Vol,1 & IPCC AR5, the authors of NCA Vol.2 have given a big fat gift to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy," Pielke Jr. wrote in a tweet Friday shortly after the White House released the report. "Embarrassing."


https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/24/climate-change-donald-trump-report/


----------



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

https://fox2now.com/2018/02/26/nasa...AFdpDO1xM83d1jMJqpvSbygwyTNgriGhNRWCFPMGOLcVU


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

And.....



> The White House released a report on climate change this week that made headlines for some of the dire warnings it contained.
> 
> But there's nothing in the report that hasn't been stated publicly before and, in most instances, simply reiterates what was in previous reports.


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/nothing_new_in_administration_climate_change_report.html


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

I personally don’t give a rat’s a-s, even if the climate is changing. I object to the Paris Climate Accord placing the cost of the agreement squarely on the backs of the American taxpayer. The worlds worst polluters, China and India, get away virtually scot free.

And PLEASE don’t give me this “renewable energy bulls—t”. I have a few thousand bucks invested in a solar setup that powers very little considering the costs involved. With the heavy winter overcast recently, I haven’t gotten any effective output to power anything in days. And I live in the mountains. Renewable energy isn’t gonna keep me warm in the winter. Windmills aren’t gonna power my electric car. And the farmers aren’t gonna get their fields plowed with battery power.

This “climate change agenda” is a plan to force people into cities and restrict their movements and mobility. If you live in a government owned apartment and have no independent means of travel, you are much more easily controlled.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Hey RJAMES! You seem to have indicated that you have a farm or some property that you work. Why don’t you tell us about your solar powered tractor or your electric pickup truck.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

How idiots continue to fall for the man made climate change crap astounds me. According to Gore and Barry, Miami was under water 2 years ago. We have steady to increasing ice on the planet, not decreasing. The sun is "the" determining factor in our climate. And why does all man made climate change data always leave out the date from 1930-1939?


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

RJAMES said:


> https://fox2now.com/2018/02/26/nasa...AFdpDO1xM83d1jMJqpvSbygwyTNgriGhNRWCFPMGOLcVU


Don't links require comments ?


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

For arguments sake, _for a moment _let us say Climate Change is real and induced by humans.

The real solution is reduction of our carbon footprint. Not just moving off fossil fuels to some green solar powered cars and homes. That is not a real reduction in ones carbon footprint. 
Real reduction of ones carbon footprint is giving up pretty much everything post industrial revolution. No TV. No internet (there was a recent report that internet streaming now consumes as much energy as the airline industry). No AC. No electrical heating. No electricity at all. No globalization. No air travel. No cars. No homes bigger than 1500sqft. No Starbucks. No fast food. No grocery stores. No Amazon. No smartphones.

Ask the average snowflake if to fight Climate Change, would they be willing to make a _real sacrifice_, give up all that and more and live a Amish like lifestyle. 
Did you hear their heads explode?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

The following quote and link are appropriate to the topic......



> The opiate of the masses is not just religion, but the propaganda, misinformation, lies and technological distractions designed by the invisible government ruling class to provide the masses with pleasant illusions about their country, society, and material situation. If the masses were to wake up and realize they are being manipulated, oppressed, and corralled like sheep, revolution would sweep the land. People are being driven mad by an overwhelming feeling of cognitive dissonance.


Mad World


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Climate changes is nothing more then another attempt to redistribute wealth. Ours. This rock will do what it's going to do just as it has done for the last 4.5 billion years. Man and his arrogance indeed, against the back drop of the universe to think man is anything but a insignificant spec of star dust.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

I have a family member that is a big time liberal/environmental freak. This person and “significant other” (no kids) have 4 cars between them. 1 full size truck, 2 full size SUVs, and 1 full size sedan. Up until a few weeks ago it was 5 cars. They live in a 3 bedroom home with a full finished basement. ( 2400 sq. Ft. ). The air conditioner runs all summer and the heat pump all winter. They take multiple vacations either flying or cruising. If they are awake, the kitchen, dining room, and living room are fully lit up. At least 3 indoor night lights and one outdoor security light on all night. And 2 additional motion activated lights outside on the property. This person keeps telling me we need to do something to combat global warming. Typical liberal..........”DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!”

Oh yeah...... they have zero solar panels or a windmill. Their main electricity source is nuclear and coal fired. LMAO:vs_laugh:


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)




----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

This disappoints me. I enjoy a little banter with RJAMES, and now because of this unargumental treatise on global warming, this self proclaimed master-debater will be buying a dogsled and heading north to Alaska. Couldn't we dump all of our unwanted snow onto his house and tell him the earth is in danger of global freezing?

Why should we lose all the fun because RJAMES shacks up with an Inuit woman in a igloo claiming he was right all of the time?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

The easiest way to debunk this madness is to follow the money. There are two money trails to follow. One is the money these researchers and universities get to put out these "studies". Without the doom and gloom scenarios they would get no more money. No one is going to fund them to publish "Everything is just going great studies". The second is look at the real estate market and the banks. Banks do not, let me repeat DO NOT, lend money if they think they will lose it. Yet banks are still lending huge amounts of money to the rich who want expensive property next to the ocean. Hmmmmmm? Why would the banks do this knowing those homes will be underwater in 20 or so years before the mortgage is paid off? Simple answer is they wouldn't.


----------



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

So the answer is you choose to ignore yet anther report. You deny and refuse to use data that does not agree with your predetermined notions. As to debating not debating use the info or not .


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

RJAMES said:


> So the answer is you choose to ignore yet anther report. You deny and refuse to use data that does not agree with your predetermined notions. As to debating not debating use the info or not .


Again, are you looking at a mirror?



> As to debating not debating use the info or not


In other words, you are just going to do your usual drop-and-run tactic.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

RJAMES said:


> So the answer is you choose to ignore yet anther report. You deny and refuse to use data that does not agree with your predetermined notions. As to debating not debating use the info or not .


I'm not really debating, I've just already chose a side.

We have a talk show in the afternoon here with host Vicki McKenna. She had a meteorologist on with data affirming that that global warmth has not changed one bit in 15 years.

Yes, I've seen the sections of icebergs fall--that's what they do. But no one talks about the monumental amount of icebergs that floated deep into the Atlantic in 1912. You have heard of The Titanic, haven't you? Interesting thing about 1912. Only 1/3 of our present global population then. Very few cars. No jet planes. Your best chance at debunking the massive iceberg drift of that year is "horse flatulence."

There was lots of that in 1912.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

RJAMES said:


> Reduced rain in the southwest ( Southern California , Arizona , Utah, Nevada , New Mexico , all but eastern Texas and most of Oklahoma might lead you to consider avoiding the area.


I guess that I am being nit picky here, but the SW part of the US, has a lot of desert, and they don't get much rain to begin with. Oklahoma has scorpions, and it is desert land, and all of the states mentioned have lots of desert land. And that kind of land does not get much rain to start with.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The real question; Does @RJAMES believe that she has even the slightest chance of changing anyone's mind about this foolishness called global warming?

I will await her response or if she prefers, a new thread from her pertaining to homesteading...:vs_smile:


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

If you are a person with half a brain and interested in a real take on climate, read this......

Is The Climate Really Getting Warmer? | Extrano's Alley


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> The real question; Does @RJAMES believe that she has even the slightest chance of changing anyone's mind about this foolishness called global warming?
> 
> I will await her response or if she prefers, a new thread from her pertaining to homesteading...:vs_smile:


 @Slippy for the win.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

DEEP THOUGHTS BY SLIPPY;

The same people who believe this climate hoax bullshit also believe that killing babies is A-OK. 

Hmmmm. lain:


----------



## Notold63 (Sep 18, 2016)

I guess I’m showing my age, but in the 70’s the apocalyptic disaster that was coming our way was a new ice age. Speaking of which, just how did the last ice age end? What caused the Earth to warm and the ice to melt? Was it a whole lot of prehistoric hunters BBQing mastodons?

There is a journal from approximately 1200 years ago written by a Monk in Germany who was working in olive groves. Today there are no olive groves in Germany, it is too cold. I suggest that the climate goes through cycles of heating and cooling.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Yeah, about that global warming thing..............

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...efore-new-york-as-near-record-cold-hits-south


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

RJAMES said:


> So the answer is you choose to ignore yet anther report. You deny and refuse to use data that does not agree with your predetermined notions. As to debating not debating use the info or not .


Again, for arguments sake, let us say Climate Change is real and human induced.

According to the report, 


> While mitigation and adaptation efforts have expanded substantially in the last four years, they do not yet approach the scale considered necessary to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades.


What is a realistic solution to avoid the damages mentioned and fight Climate Change?

Looking at this from a strictly problematic point of view, a real solution is a drastic and sever reduction of human carbon footprint. Not just here in the US but world wide. 
Globalism would have to end. Long distance travel based off fossil fuels would have to end. Food traveling 1,200 miles to get to your plate would have to end. Out of season food would have to end. Petro-chemicals would have to end. Air travel would have to end. The internet would have to end.

A realistic solution would be something similar to a austere Amish lifestyle.

Green energy is not a real solution as those still require fossil fuel inputs. The EROEI is in the negative without fossil fuel inputs or the means to acquire those materials.

Would you be willing to reduce your carbon footprint to pre- Industrial Revolution levels?

Would any vehemently pro-Climate Change proponent be willing to do what it really takes to fight Climate Change?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

If you remember, Trump has had ongoing problems with lefty over commie obammy turds in govt, such as in the EPA since Trump took office. Another piece.....



> Marc Morano at Climate Depot notes that climate expert Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has found a glaring hole in the recently released climate change report by the White House.
> 
> Pielke points out that the report utterly failed to highlight the significant drop in the number of hurricanes that have made landfall in the US.





> Pielke Jr. then noted that the report ignored one of its own expert reviewers who wrote this: "National Hurricane Center going back to the 1800s data clearly indicate a drop in the decadal rate of US landfalling hurricanes since the 1960s&#8230; instead you spin the topic to make it sound like the trends are all towards more cyclones."


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/noted_climate_scientists_trashes_white_house_climate_report.html


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Are these the same liberal experts that can't tell the difference between a girl and a boy??


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

What I find of most interest is whenever I posit the solution to Climate Change, being a mass reduction of the carbon footprint, no one ever seems to be willing to roger up and say, yes, they will make the sacrifice and give up all their modern conveniences for a pre- Industrial Revolution lifestyle. 

For some reason, they just do not want to give up their smartphones, Starbucks, and videos of cats for the Little House on the Prairie life.

Most just waffle about some green revolution solution that is not really a solution at all, but a do the bare minimum to get a warm and fuzzy they are doing something when it is really doing nothing at all.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

RJAMES said:


> The scientific report, which was produced by 13 federal agencies, describes an American future that is nothing short of apocalyptic due to rising threats from climate change. It suggests that no facet of life - whether it's global trade, national security or personal health - will be safe. And it says every nightmare scenario will feed into another: The disasters from climate change will start to compound each other, as will the consequences.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nation...warnings/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=60114252
> 
> ...


Its hoax science produced by deep state bureacrats trying to make Trump look bad. There ya go.


----------



## CoffeePot (Nov 9, 2018)

RJAMES said:


> For younger folks do you ignore this or try and figure out how to use the information. Example they say the ocean levels will be rising so rather than living at a lower elevation along the coast do you calculate what they say might happen with rising ocean levels when deciding where to buy your homestead/ bug out location.
> 
> Reduced rain in the southwest ( Southern California , Arizona , Utah, Nevada , New Mexico , all but eastern Texas and most of Oklahoma might lead you to consider avoiding the area.


Honestly I don't pay much mind to climate change. The climate has been changing since the beginning of the earth and it won't stop because of us. I honestly think climate change has more to do with the sun than carbon emissions.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

A video and link that absolutely destroy the man made climate change narrative with facts and the fascist goals behind the push. Below is the truth. Listen, learn and share.....








> Latest Global Warming Lies from US Global Change Research Program





> The trouble with climate models is that their output is not a plausible representation of the climate of the Earth. The in words of the distinguished climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, no climate skeptic: "&#8230;none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate."
> 
> The climate models are very large black boxes. They are far too complicated to make sense of what is going on. The way the models are used to create predictions or projections of future climate is determined by political, not scientific considerations. The results of the many models are simply averaged together to create an ensemble of climate models that is used to make the doomsday predictions. Instead of using the best model to make predictions, all the models are used as if every model is as good as every other model.


https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/latest_global_warming_lies_from_us_global_change_r esearch_program.html


----------



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

Chapter 21 The midwest in case anyone actually wanted to read it. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ch...ShQJF_ZtWzXHVw2jgHOzTj9vVO7TmaMh3E0BCrEBAVS5g

Planting dates , farming practices , calving target dates have started to change . Just about all of my neighbors now plan to have part of their calves born in the fall. You would be called crazy to say that 50 years ago. We are now getting late seasons warm spells that combined with mid september rains means we have fresh grass in Late September and all of October that we did not used to have at all. This November did bring an early snow but many of our Novembers this past decade have had some slow grass growth in the first two weeks.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

During the winters of 1960 and 1961, we had snow drifts that touched our house's rain gutters. Based on these marginal and singular events, I now project The New Ice Age.

A global change takes centuries, not weekends.


----------



## Prepper Senpai (Nov 27, 2018)

If you are scientifically illiterate, you shouldn’t be posting “facts” on research that you don’t understand.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

I really don't need to be scientifically literate to know every global warming hew, cry and study is funded by a government that is clamoring for more government. Show me where I'm wrong.



Prepper Senpai said:


> If you are scientifically illiterate, you shouldn't be posting "facts" on research that you don't understand.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

RJAMES said:


> Chapter 21 The midwest in case anyone actually wanted to read it. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ch...ShQJF_ZtWzXHVw2jgHOzTj9vVO7TmaMh3E0BCrEBAVS5g
> 
> Planting dates , farming practices , calving target dates have started to change . Just about all of my neighbors now plan to have part of their calves born in the fall. You would be called crazy to say that 50 years ago. We are now getting late seasons warm spells that combined with mid september rains means we have fresh grass in Late September and all of October that we did not used to have at all. This November did bring an early snow but many of our Novembers this past decade have had some slow grass growth in the first two weeks.


Aaand, the point is that the climate changes, right? 
You know it was doing that before the industrial revolution. It was doing that before the Europeans came to North America. 
What's changed? Globalists have figured out a way to tax the air and get the brainwashed to want to be taxed.


----------



## Prepper Senpai (Nov 27, 2018)

I get it, I did not believe in global warming before I started a research project that blatantly pointed towards the fact that it is happening.
Part of this is the scientist’s fault, they are not always the best at communicating to the public, and the language is different then what we use in everyday life.
I agree that the government can push too hard into our lives or attempts to sway our opinions, but this is 100% not one of these times. I have worked in research for the past 10 years, I have gotten the hang of spotting good research from bad, I still have to read a study 3 or 4 times to fully understand every aspect (it's not easy to read and understand a scientific terminology or math involved). 
There is no point in arguing this; your opinions are often based on emotion and group affiliation, not facts. it the same situation as the anti-vaccination movement. yes, there are lots of studies funded privately (not by government or biased funding that have something to gain). You can find peer-reviewed studies on the NCBI network for free. (I can post them if you want) 
The majority of scientist I worked with don’t care what the results are and just want to know the truth (yes there are still bad apples that fake research, but these are few.) the fact is that the majority of scientists believe man-made global warming is happening, whether you believe in it or not.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Prepper Senpai said:


> I get it, I did not believe in global warming before I started a research project that blatantly pointed towards the fact that it is happening.
> Part of this is the scientist's fault, they are not always the best at communicating to the public, and the language is different then what we use in everyday life.
> I agree that the government can push too hard into our lives or attempts to sway our opinions, but this is 100% not one of these times. I have worked in research for the past 10 years, I have gotten the hang of spotting good research from bad, I still have to read a study 3 or 4 times to fully understand every aspect (it's not easy to read and understand a scientific terminology or math involved).
> There is no point in arguing this; your opinions are often based on emotion and group affiliation, not facts. it the same situation as the anti-vaccination movement. yes, there are lots of studies funded privately (not by government or biased funding that have something to gain). You can find peer-reviewed studies on the NCBI network for free. (I can post them if you want)
> The majority of scientist I worked with don't care what the results are and just want to know the truth (yes there are still bad apples that fake research, but these are few.) the fact is that the majority of scientists believe man-made global warming is happening, whether you believe in it or not.


Since you are researching it and stating your findings could you, for transparency, state your world viewpoint and conceptual lens that you are looking at this research question from/through please? I take it from the above above you're a post-positivist?

Fangfarrier

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Tourist said:


> During the winters of 1960 and 1961, we had snow drifts that touched our house's rain gutters. Based on these marginal and singular events, I now project The New Ice Age.
> 
> A global change takes centuries, not weekends.


Or thirty years. Fifty or so years if you count them trying to figure if we are going to freeze to death or burn to a crisp.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepper Senpai said:


> I get it, I did not believe in global warming before I started a research project that blatantly pointed towards the fact that it is happening.
> Part of this is the scientist's fault, they are not always the best at communicating to the public, and the language is different then what we use in everyday life.
> I agree that the government can push too hard into our lives or attempts to sway our opinions, but this is 100% not one of these times. I have worked in research for the past 10 years, I have gotten the hang of spotting good research from bad, I still have to read a study 3 or 4 times to fully understand every aspect (it's not easy to read and understand a scientific terminology or math involved).
> There is no point in arguing this; your opinions are often based on emotion and group affiliation, not facts. it the same situation as the anti-vaccination movement. yes, there are lots of studies funded privately (not by government or biased funding that have something to gain). You can find peer-reviewed studies on the NCBI network for free. (I can post them if you want)
> The majority of scientist I worked with don't care what the results are and just want to know the truth (yes there are still bad apples that fake research, but these are few.) the fact is that the majority of scientists believe man-made global warming is happening, whether you believe in it or not.


You just said a lot of.... what? Yuo said you did research. OK. Then, you said scientists aren't capable of making it clear to those of us who are unwashed. Are you washed? I'm not, to be honest with you. You then assert that most of the scientists believe warming is due to man-made activity and we (the unwashed) can believe it or not.

I don't believe it. I'll tell you why.

We all know that governments fund research. We all know that the research that supports what the governments (Globalists) want pushed will get the money. So, if you want the money, you support what your patrons want pushed. 
Now, if you want to research opposing views, you will find educated, experienced and respected scientists who will tell you that CO2 levels have been much lower and much higher. These times were waaay before man reached the industrial revolution. As a matter of fact, they'll tell you these changes were even before man made it to the stage. How do you account for this?

So now, they don't call it "global warming." They call it "man-made climate change." Would you agree that is a tad open-ended? Whether the temps or the CO2 goes up or down, the Globalists can con people into paying an air-tax. They can be conned into buying into new and more expensive technology. Meanwhile, they continue to live their luxurious lives.

If it were a matter of life and death of the entire world, why would one country be able to sell its "carbon credits" to another? Think about it. The U.S. is criticized because it abondoned the Paris Accord but has less CO2 emmisions than the members.

You say you researched this. Did you research it, or did you simply read what sheep are supposed to read?


----------



## Prepper Senpai (Nov 27, 2018)

Again, there is no point in arguing this, but…
I once provided results to a colleague who expected something different, he was mad, but those were the results, whether he liked it or not. He gave me another sample to test again, and I got the same results. If he told me to lie or falsify the data, I would have told him to go **** himself (he didn’t). I ruined his expectations for that experiment, I don’t like doing that, but facts are facts.

Why would you only want to see my one research paper? You won’t trust me anyways (I never trust single research papers). Why not look at the entire scientific communities, you should be looking at a non-biased meta study. One study is basically meaningless (including the one I took part in), what you need to look for is a collection of studies that eliminates bad research and are funded by unbiased entities. What I have seen is that the overall scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. 
If I had a conceptual lens it would be “what does the evidence point to?”. Really, in research you don’t know what is going to happen. You need to eliminate any bias.
My world viewpoint? ok. I’m non-partisan, I work in research and work as a reservist in the military part time. I’m always interested in finding the truth, no mater how bad it hurts (that’s why I got into the sciences in the first place). 

I personally (currently) trust the majority of scientists and the scientific method, it has its flaws (drawbacks of the mouse model are a great current example), but until the data shows otherwise, I will trust the most reliable source I know. 

I can change my mind about issues that provide more evidence to the contrary. Can you?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepper Senpai said:


> Again, there is no point in arguing this, but&#8230;
> I once provided results to a colleague who expected something different, he was mad, but those were the results, whether he liked it or not. He gave me another sample to test again, and I got the same results. If he told me to lie or falsify the data, I would have told him to go **** himself (he didn't). I ruined his expectations for that experiment, I don't like doing that, but facts are facts.
> 
> Why would you only want to see my one research paper? You won't trust me anyways (I never trust single research papers). Why not look at the entire scientific communities, you should be looking at a non-biased meta study. One study is basically meaningless (including the one I took part in), what you need to look for is a collection of studies that eliminates bad research and are funded by unbiased entities. What I have seen is that the overall scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
> ...


First off, I deited out your F-bomb. As an educated researcher, I would expect you to be able to read our rules.

Now, as far as the rest of this post of yours; you said nothing. You went from "I researched" to "I am a researcher." The rest of it is, "trust me."


----------



## Prepper Senpai (Nov 27, 2018)

My mistake on the f bomb

"We all know that governments fund research", that's true! But that does not mean bias. Money from the government does not come with instructions for supporting their ideologies. I don't give a &#8230;.. if it's a republican or democratic government. I will provide a write up on the results regardless if it agrees with the government or not.

FYI and I payed for a lot of the expenses for materials out of my own pocket.
remember that scientists are human beings too. We want the same thing, and that is the truth.

i had no part in this study, but its worth a read https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340922/

or this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340922/

also, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694765/


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Prepper Senpai said:


> If I had a conceptual lens it would be "what does the evidence point to?". Really, in research you don't know what is going to happen. You need to eliminate any bias.
> My world viewpoint? ok. I'm non-partisan, I work in research and work as a reservist in the military part time. I'm always interested in finding the truth, no mater how bad it hurts (that's why I got into the sciences in the first place).
> 
> I


Let's pretend for a minute I'm an academic. Speak to me like I'm an academic. 
Your conceptual lens is?
Your conceptual framework is?
Once I know your bias I can understand your research and conclusions.

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepper Senpai said:


> My mistake on the f bomb
> 
> "We all know that governments fund research", that's true! But that does not mean bias. Money from the government does not come with instructions for supporting their ideologies. I don't give a &#8230;.. if it's a republican or democratic government. I will provide a write up on the results regardless if it agrees with the government or not.
> 
> ...


No sweat. You're new and we cut new folks slack. Foul language is normal in today's lack of culture and we understand there is a learning curve.

Money doesn't come with strings attached? Scientists on both sides have said otherwise, and I'll bet you know this. I've known scientists who would disagree. This doesn't just apply to "science" but also "education." I place both in quotations because it minimalizes both terms when they are bought.

Explain how climate has changed for thousands of years without the assistance of the industrial revolution and how the CO2 level has been much lower and much higher while blaming it all on humans and I'll then listen.
Oh, don't bother giving me links. I don't care about that. I have read a lot of studies. Yes, even those that are written by "scientists" who are bought. "Scientists" and not Globalist politicians or "woke" celebrities.

In historically-recent times, the people skated on the Thames, and people also grew olive orchards in Germany. 
Occording to Jaques Cousteau, the Flordia peninsula would be the same as Malta as of thirty years ago.

Yes, climate changes. We all know that. Seems "those scientists" aren't the only ones who can't explain it to the unwashed. You've done no more than offer opinion on why they are right and offer links to their writings.

Do a better job at changing my mind. Until you do, I'll assume history is correct.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> Let's pretend for a minute I'm an academic. Speak to me like I'm an academic.
> Your conceptual lens is?
> Your conceptual framework is?
> Once I know your bias I can understand your research and conclusions.
> ...


He said he is nonpartisan. Take it from there.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

I for one found Prepper Senpai posts intelligent, lucid and interesting.

However, I will pose the same question to Prpepper Senpai as I did RJames: What is the solution?

Edit: I am not interested in debating the confirm or deny, but what is the realistic solution.


----------

