NOAA to Abandon Climate Change Terminology ?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (76 posts)
  1. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    I New it !    The era of "political correctness" may finally be maturing into something slightly better  ?   NOAA having been instrumental in promoting the whole recent Global Warming alarmism  may be returning to it's actual day job
    of predicting the weather?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Can they stop the Arctic ice from melting by 1% a year?

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        meanwhile other parts of the globe, ice is increasing...global cooling coming due to weak solar sunspot cycle...

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Just read that federal  U.S. "environmentally laundered " green subsidization policies has allowed for the deforestation here in the east and northeast regions for wood pellet produced electrical powering UK. power stations , SO THAT THEY can claim environment progress in production grids of electricity .Environmental progress =  U.S. Trees --to wood pellets-- to the UK  ?
          One more national exploitation  for environmental P.C. cause?

          WHAT ?

        2. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          This kind of thinking is horrible.

          Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

          Over 200 countries sign the Paris Accord leaving out the US. There is no other issues you get countries to agree, upon unanimously. Then the greatest thread to earth. You wonder why Trump is the most disliked person on earth.

          I have the world largest snow sculptors business, set 15 world record for snow playgrounds and snowman's and had to quit. Why? Global warning.

          The Big Thaw
          As the climate warms, how much, and how quickly, will Earth's glaciers melt? Picture of an ice cap melting in Norway, ice cap on the island of Nordaustlandet. Sperry Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana.National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds.

          The first ship came the North West passage in 1984. Now regular tourist ship vist.

          We are loosing badly to the greatest threat on earth.

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            You've got to stop with the Mad Magazine facts , statistics and figures Jake!
            You're way off base on those numbers .

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I studied in Finland Norway and Sweden about igloos and Ice hotels. From being in the Arctic and my peers agree. Man made most of this greatest threat.

              You don't know First hand like we do. We lost a lot money in the snow business.

              1. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                When REAL scientists start congealing with a proven message about the "Global Warming " issue and independent studies based upon traditionally  disproving of all science , AND not "proving that warming  exists  "?  Then  I'll listen .

                We cannot have a very recent and LIBERALLY  biased and politically motivated form of science trying  to "prove it's way into global warming".  Go back and study this issue from the seventies , you see why people do not believe .

                1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                  Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  In Vancouver the have succulent plants growings everywhere. Palm tree grow along the beaches. Know a few who have banana tree outside.

                  Prairie farming tell their growing seasons have extended for A month and half longer. I have stayed if so many huge Corperationism said it illegal to live self substainable green.  Their oil fracking pollutes more than all the cars in canada.
                  People in the north live really short lives

                  1. profile image0
                    ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    A Forty year proof of global warming by liberal influxes in research science is not science , It's liberal politics-- polluting science ,   Science can't even tell us any weather  records over a hundred +  years old . How is that a proven record of knowing anything about weather history ?

                    I believe in Climate Change , it's called  The four seasons !

                2. Aime F profile image83
                  Aime Fposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  What evidence do you have that these are not “real” scientists? Are you at all familiar with the scientific method? You have to create a hypothesis to test. Science is not and has never been about randomly trying to disprove things.

                  The fact that you’re prepared to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because you don’t like what it says is absolutely terrifying.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                    Castlepalomaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Hey, I'm fearless, and I move to south America because I know too much about the real dangers of the natural environment now and in the near future.

                  2. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    You hit the nail on its head.
                    There is no scientific method when it come to climate change...that is the problem...
                    Any theory cannot be proved or disproved.
                    That is why their models project out to 30 years...
                    by then, they are retired and collecting their nice pension.

                    The earth is warming...
                    That is all they can say...
                    Any research that shows effects of warming on our environment can all be true...

                    What is not proven is that we humans are the main cause of the warming.
                    As you well know, the earth has a variable climate down through the ages...and experience an ice age approx. every 100,000 years cycle.

                  3. profile image0
                    ahorsebackposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Aime , If the last part were true , One , Then why is there so much dissent in the science community ? Two , How much and how effective is real data and science that has been collected in less than one [100]hundred years ,
                    global warming study less than 50 years , all compiled from  the real history 4.534 BILLION years of earth's weather history ? 

                    Spain that ?

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            "Over 200 countries sign the Paris Accord leaving out the US."

            Odd - there are just 193 countries in the UN, and 2 more self-declared countries no one recognizes.
            https://www.worldometers.info/geography … the-world/

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Your right, the last time I fact check there wasn'ts 216 countries, these countries must bonded together to protect themselves from NWO. When they said all countries joined on, I assume, very very sorry.

              Still all the countries bonded together to save our species, even North Korea, and Syria. UN wanted to ban an fossil fuel where Trump calls coal clean.  Anywhere I have traveled in the world where they have coal energy. They the worst air pollution in the world.

              You want fracking oil and coal energy, for sure you will chock on it and kill your water and soil.

              What do I care, I am Moving to one of the most unpolluted areas in  the world.

          3. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            John Stossel did a great report on the hoax of the Paris accord.  I suggest every one click on the link below and watch it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkAsPizAbU

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              That looked like two crooked lawyers cherry picking garbages. At least they admitted America produces double the greenhouse gases than India or China. I hope they got payoff well by their greedy fossil energy and fracking oil Cartels and chock on it. 

              If 96℅ of the world was wants to fake it til they make it,  in cleaning up natural environmental. Just sanction US for destroying it, the environment is far more dangerous than North Korean nukes or nukes in general. If Trump hasn't already sanction themselves off.

              About a half century 75℅ of large trees are gone, 90 of big fish... gone...most of land mammals, gone...Where is their honest politicans or lawyer, or multi media. Shame on you.

              One time I thought John Stossel was ethical. There was show he made out like the Isreal Zionist/Jews were victim to the Palestinian. The Zionist took away Palestinian land and treated them worst than prisoner or American Indians. Why not? he is Jewish and a Trump warrior. Trump who is a 1000s behind Jewish/Zionist israel where power, banks Jewish taxes and dirty oil are Centro. All roads lead to the fires of greed. Not to our greatest threat to mankind, water, land, sky, sun and soil

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                So in your anti-semetic mind, the Jews, who are a small percent of the world population are responsible for all the ills...
                You are beginning to sound like Nazi Germany in the 1930s...

                what is next, UFO from outer space???

                or The ugly Americans... who save the planet from Fascists...and have donated the most to help the world's poor...

                Your problem is your myopic views.... your rose colored glasses...
                The world would be perfect if America and Israel are wiped out of the earth...

                1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                  Castlepalomaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I say control the insanity, don't be the insanity by wiping out America and Isreal.

                  Your  leaders maybe cold blooded reptiles. The American are good people once they are deprogrammed from their powers to be.

                  The only evidence of creatures from outer space are Trarigrades. I refuse George Lucas Aliens sculptures because like Jesus I have no clear references to.

                  Anything centroize to those greedy bastards like Trump as Fascism. Who do they donate to after they destroy a country. To Walmart, McDonald and the US military bases and so on,  all over their country decent soil.

    2. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      The fact that relatively recent increases in climate are largely caused by human activity, is not political correctness. It's just our (the human race's) best current scientific understanding.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        '".......Best current scientific understanding......." And that is very true , But 

        One , along what little we could possibly  KNOW out of studying scientifically  only fifty years in a four and a half billion- with a B --history , It is very safe to say that ,that is nowhere near enough study to even begin to get a credible scientific history.   If this same time frame of applied study were to be applied to say criminal history or political science ,  the record keepers would be laughed out of a job .

        Two , The all too recent history of computers , their evolution and consequent study patterns and accuracy cannot now possibly be used to any reliable or accurate  conclusion  and especially  ending results to determine that Yes , there is a history of global warming .period .

        Three , The study of science by man only insures that the human element of man is infused into all fact , statistic  and even  results   so human nature plays into the picture probably more than any other element .  Bottom line ;    It is way too early in a beginning study history to point a finger [a human finger ] at such firm  conclusions about warming , cooling or up and down trends  .

        Four , We also HAVE to look at  the money lines of these studies , political agendas , grants , guaranteed finances of  federal tax dollars right through the system down to the laboratories .  Who's agenda are we studying ?

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I know right! It's like how do they know the earth even existed before people, when no one was there to see it? It's crazy! We just don't know whether it did or not. People accept the words of these fancy "scientists" with their fancy "computers" going around doing fancy "science" like it's their job or something. Scientists shmientists. Unless they can produce an eye witness who saw the earth existing before humans existed, I think we need to be skeptical about that claim. Sounds like some kind of politically correct nonsense to me! Even worse, it could be somehow connected to *shudder* socialism .

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Apparently some people claim a love for P.C. science and don't know much beyond it Don ,  But whatever you say ,because one thing that we all DO know is that  some people are actually colorblind to the grey areas and merely see the extremes , the outside ends or only the black and white of an issue. So besides your wise a$$ remarks , welcome to that club!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              It is alot cheaper and efficient to work off of wind, solar, geo thermal, and bio fuel.

              Your going going to run out of oil and fossil energy and kill us in the process. The Wealthy is all for that idea.

  2. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago

    It's clear alot of you here have sold your soul to the Greedy Bastards.  As you hope some trickle down to you. These as*holes will sh*t over the earth and you will beg them for more.

    Please Sir, may I have a little more trickle.

  3. hard sun profile image87
    hard sunposted 7 months ago

    It's the National Weather Service's job to predict the weather. It is just one branch of NOAA. I have a BS in Meteorology and Climatology...but it doesn't take one to understand the difference.

    Heres NOAA's mission: "NOAA's Mission: Science, Service and Stewardship

    1. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts;

    2. To share that knowledge and information with others; and

    3. To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources."

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      That's great , Perhaps now you might enlighten us as to why the NOAA or any government funded , granted or subsidy supported scientific research entity should have been politicized to begin with ?
      Have you read or heard about this politicization from the seventies ?

      1. crankalicious profile image92
        crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        The scientists didn't politicize NOAA, politicians did. It's basically the difference between people who understand scientific principles and those who do not. It's the difference between ignorance and knowledge. The science is quite simple (CO2 increase in the atmosphere = greenhouse gas effect = global warming).

        Let's just re-emphasize. Many right-wingers don't believe science. They believe the world is flat. They believe vaccines cause autism. The believe evolution is "only a theory" or that there's no way humans and apes can be related. They believe a single snowball anywhere in the world disproves global warming. They believe the sun revolves around the earth.

        The evidence that the earth is heating up due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is indisputable (that's why 99% of climate scientists agree on it and there are virtually no peer-reviewed articles disproving global warming). You are conflating the science with the alarmism. If you don't believe in the alarmism, then that's fine, but arguing the science when the evidence and the data is clear that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and heating up the earth is like arguing that the world is flat.

        I presume you believe we should go back to the days of using hair spray and other ozone destroying substances. Remember when politicians looked at the science, did something about it, and stopped the growth of the ozone hole by eliminating the products that were destroying it?

        I suspect you're somebody whose hair needs a lot of hold and you're desperate for the old days when we could get a good hold on our hair and destroy the ozone at the same time.

        This is where listening to conspiracy theories all day destroys one's mind - the inability to tell truth from fiction. The inability to be rational. And, applauding and supporting fascism.

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          You are making my point perfectly. Even using the Ozone example. I wrote about it in my article on climate change.
          The science may be simple but global climate is not so simple. That is why we need to study it more and not accept the simple model that is present and failing in making projections...

          If the greenhouse effect is the only driving force, our global temperature would be much higher by now. Just look at the CO2 concentrations growing past 400ppm and rising steadily...why are we not seeing temperature rise correspondingly? And storms geting more frequent and intense and sea level rising faster?
          In fact, none of that is happening on the level they have projected. Watch Al Gore’s documentary to see exactly what I mean. At some point, even none scientists will realize that the climate scientists do not have a good understanding of climate just yet. The boy that cried wolf now has egg on their face. The warming is not happening as quickly as they predicted and they don’t understand why as they admitted it in their private email via climategate...

          Some at the IPCC have even admitted that current measurements are within natural variations.

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            It saddens me that open dialogue is not possible. Disagree with conclusions on agreed upon data and you are somehow anti science. The witch hunters can't see how anti science they are.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I am an engineer by training and a science advocate. If you read my article, you would understand why the skeptics like me are perfectly in our right to question the current "science" of climate change.
              Science by definition is not a consensus. It is either proven or it is not. Models are only as good as their projections. If the projections are wrong or miss the mark, there is something wrong with the model not the average person. I would not spent the past 10 years doing research and reading and attending lectures...if there was no question as to the current science claims. Unfortunately, it has been politicized by environmentalist and Hollywood celebrities and Al Gore...

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                I think you are perfectly within your rights. I just find it amusing that, often times, people with no knowledge of the science accuse those who are of ignorance on the matter.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I am open to discussions in detail on this topic. I have a lot of resources to back up my claims and to educate...

            2. crankalicious profile image92
              crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              We are not arguing the conclusions of the data. People are arguing that the data is falsified and/or not real.

          2. crankalicious profile image92
            crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            This isn't about me convincing somebody about the science. This is about people not believing the data and the experts. I don't care whether you believe Al Gore. Al Gore isn't a scientist. But once again, the science on global warming is incontrovertible.

            This is analogous to not getting your children vaccinated because you believe the doctors are lying to you and, instead, believing a few anecdotal stories about people who think their kids got autism after getting vaccinated.

            This is the result of the oil industry spending millions and millions of dollars to discredit science.

            This is analogous to believing that cigarettes don't cause cancer because you choose to believe the tobacco industry instead of the millions of doctors and scientists who have concluded that smoking cigarettes cause cancer. Do you all smoke? I don't see why you wouldn't. It's perfectly healthy, right? Think about all those years (40+?) where doctors were warning people about cigarettes causing lung cancer and people like you saying that no, the doctors are lying, cigarettes are perfectly healthy. Look at me, I'm smoking and I don't have lung cancer! Or what about my dad, he's smoked all his life and doesn't have cancer. Look, here's an exception that proves my entire theory that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Look!! And you bought into that lie because the tobacco industry spent millions and millions of dollars to discredit the scientists who were proving otherwise. But you listened to the tobacco industry instead of the doctors.

            And now, you're listening to the oil industry instead of the scientists.

            Ultimately, it's about preferring to believe conspiracy theories instead of science. Again, all you have to do is dig into climatology even a little and see that experts in this field agree almost 100% on the fact that the earth is heating up and what is causing it. We can disagree on the solutions. The fact remains.

            If somebody tells me that the earth is flat, how can there even be rational dialogue after that? There are quite a few people who believe the earth is flat. If somebody tells me that the sun revolves around the earth, how can there be rational dialogue with that person? That person is choosing to believe conspiracy theories and unscientific internet research over the 99% percent of scientist who believe the earth revolves around the sun.

            Do you realize that the percentage of climate scientists who don't believe that the earth is warming is the same as the percentage of scientists who don't believe that the earth revolves around the sun?

        2. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          "....The scientists didn't politicized ....the politicians did ............"

          No , science could have and still could produce real science , THAT would be a revelation wouldn't it ?  You make out like all science What ? , has to go through Trumps hands before publishing ?   B.S , and you absolutely know what that means .   

          These voices are NOT...." climate scientists ..." They are global warming science activists . pure and simply biased against true science .  No children , we don't think ".......the world is flat ......."   We just like science that shows its round and not goes against all the integrity of science itself.

          "...........Listening to conspiracy theories all day ......." NO , we like the truth , If that what you say were even true , It would be far better than the "Walt Disney Science Kit " that you and your party politically romanticise  .

          1. crankalicious profile image92
            crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            You sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist. Obviously, you are a conspiracy theorist. Go to any atmospheric science department at any university in the united states and see if you can confirm your "facts" with them.

            I get it. You're frightened that somebody is going to take away your gas guzzling pickup and make you drive a Prius or a Nissan Leaf. The solution is an entirely different discussion. The "China is cheating while we try to save the earth" argument is perfectly valid. What is not valid is arguing that there's no global warming. If you don't care about it, that's fine.

        3. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          My favorite if the banana theory, proves the existence of God.
          If the monkey dose not steal the banana first.

  4. hard sun profile image87
    hard sunposted 7 months ago

    "That's great , Perhaps now you might enlighten us as to why the NOAA or any government funded..."

    No, this is not something I want to do. I'm sure you have your theories as to why. I simply pointed out that climate prediction and climate change is in NOAA's job description.

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      How about tinkering with climate data? is that part of their job description as well?

  5. hard sun profile image87
    hard sunposted 7 months ago

    "tinkering with climate data" Maybe not.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/busi … bates.html
    We can go back and forth for weeks with these types of arguments.

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      How about this...from WUWT today...

      "I agree with Alexandria that the current Democrat leadership, whoever they are at this point in time, don’t seem to be taking climate change seriously.

      Imagine for a moment that you truly believed anthropogenic global warming was an imminent deadly threat. If climate change really was an existential crisis, it simply wouldn’t make sense to campaign for or support the adoption of half measures. If you truly believed the future of your children depended on giving up your car, that your kids would all die if you and your neighbours continued to use fossil fuels, wouldn’t you demand everyone immediately give up their car? Wouldn’t you feel anger and frustration towards the self serving complacency of establishment politicians who kept trying to buy you off by offering tiny upward increments to their unambitious renewable targets?

      The obvious explanation for mainstream Democrat moderation on climate issues is that most Democrat establishment politicians don’t really believe climate change is a serious issue. They offer a few token measures to win the votes of climate believers, while trying to avoid frightening off rich industrialists who are attracted to some of their other policies.

      But hardcore climate fanatics aren’t complete fools. They might be wrong about climate change, but people know when they are just being used by politicians who don’t really care about their concerns.

      It was inevitable that someone like Alexandria would arise – a true believer, someone who speaks to the hearts of fellow climate true believers, people who are fed up with being lied to and betrayed by the establishment."

      1. crankalicious profile image92
        crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I take it you're a smoker? You must be, because you have no reason to believe doctors and scientists about the effects of smoking and smoking is fun and gives a nice high. So why wouldn't you be a smoker?

        Or maybe you're not a smoker, not because scientific evidence suggests it will cause you to die, but because you don't like it or it makes your clothing smell.

        There are so many great things you can do when you don't believe basic scientific evidence. I enjoy getting X-rays for no reason.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          It's a deal breaker to date a smoker,they taste like an ashtray.

        2. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          You are avoiding answering the question posed by the author.
          If Democrat leaders of government really believe in the threat of climate change, why are they not doing more? where is the legislation proposals? where is the huge fines? where is the PSA message?
          Let's face it, if it was a dire threat, would they propose a voluntary accommodation like the Paris Accord?

  6. jackclee lm profile image79
    jackclee lmposted 7 months ago

    You are not understanding the issues. With climate change, it is not a question if the world is warming. The issue is who is causing the warming?
    Is it nature or man-made? next, is it something we can control? the debate is what is the best course of action? how do we deal with climate change. The environmentalist want all of us to stop burning fossil fuel... Is that possible?
    try living is a world without fossil fuel for 1 month. you can't...

    1. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Wrong yet again. Why am I surprised? If all you ever get on FOX News is the alarmist version that Fox uses to scare everyone, I can see how you would believe what you believe.

      However, the basic philosophy being promoted are common sense ways to reduce emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. For instance, making cars more fuel efficient is a good start.

      Btw, I don't believe in engineering. It's just a hoax created by nerds to get themselves jobs so they can have a bigger community of D&D players.

    2. Aime F profile image83
      Aime Fposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I understand the issue just fine which is why I specified that a majority of scientists agree that humans have a significant impact on climate change.

      Most environmentalists want us to work towards finding cleaner energy and living more sustainably. Not to suddenly stop burning fossil fuels forever.

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Most scientists do not understand that humans are causing the warming. The take it on faith that the greenhouse effect is true. I point to one specific example in my article.

        Here is excerpt -
        ================================================================
        Recently, I attended a Colloquium at the Lamont Observatory, Columbia University (Palisades, NY). It was a talk by Dr. Neil Pederson of Harvard University.


        His specialty is the study of tree forests. The title of the talk was “Did the climate of the late 20th Century mask mechanisms for rapid, large-scale change in eastern US forests?”

        It was a very interesting talk because it gave me a real data point that is peripheral to the general climate change environment. What I mean is that his work is related to climate science and how it affects the tree population over long periods of time but it is not a study of climate change per se. In the course of his presentation, he put up a chart showing the average temperature of four regions of forests in the US over a period of last 100 years. His focus was on droughts but it surprised me because the temperature were even over that period and in fact one region even show a slight decline of temperature.

        At the Q/A session at the end, I posed the question to Dr. Pederson and ask for his comment with regard to the claim of climate change scientists that the earth is warming. His response shocked me a bit. He didn't see any issue with that and ended his response that we are not seeing warming "yet." I was also struck by the lack of curiosity on his part. Why are we not seeing the predicted warming?

        His talk ended with the conclusion that we are in the best time of environment for trees. The last 15 or 20 years are wet and not too warm and ideal for tree life. This was not always the case going back 300 years. his study have found periods of severe drought and frost that have had negative effects on forests in the US.

        This incident relates to my assertion that most scientists are just doing their narrow study on the effects of climate change on some specific item. They "assume" that CO2 causes global warming almost religiously and don't even question that fact even when their own data fail to agree with that assertion. Instead of questioning it, they just move along and continue with their study and getting the grants.

        =========================================================================

        Here is his chart -



        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14101305.jpg

        1. Aime F profile image83
          Aime Fposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, surely most scientists are too stupid think critically about what they’re basing their research on. Or maybe they just love wasting their time and resources? Which do you suggest?

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Most scientists are seeking grants for their research. For the last 30 years, if the research is not connected to climate change in some way, they don't get the grant... I learned this first hand from some scientists.
            That is why they support climate change. Any dissent would be ostracized...

            1. Aime F profile image83
              Aime Fposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Ah, okay, so option C: most scientists have no ethics?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)