MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Biden recession is coming. Brace yourselves.  (Read 11531 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: July 23, 2022, 22:44 »
+2
....

In the US, there are claims of between 600 to 1300 deaths/year "linked to climate change". While these deaths are unfortunate, their relatively low number, can't justify climate change as a top priority.

You are proving my point. This type of exaggeration is impacting the credibility of those who make the climate change argument.
In fact, there are studies showing that due to technological progress, fewer people are dying from natural disasters today compared with a century ago.


deaths aren't the main argument for dealing w climate change - the reason to deal w it NOW is that we continue to make the situation worse and future decades will bring much more serious effects

just one excample - the arctic icecap used to reflect a large portion of the sun's radiation (aka heat) now the arctic becomes open earlier each year, leading to more heating, leading to earlier disappearance.

droughts will worsen, coasts will be inundated, crops will fail- but one of the major reasons for lack of political response (not counting those who dont even admit it's happening) is that those are long term problems, but neither corporate concentration on short term profits, nor politicians who focus only on the next election lead to any effective response today

With all due respect, you don't have to explain the effects of climate change.

The point I'm making is that if you will continue to pressure your politicians to put climate change on top of their agenda (when their constituents suffer from immediate and urgent unsolved matters) you will only make them lose their elections in front of climate change deniers.

Thus, you will achieve nothing.

Adopting a realistic, pragmatic approach to climate change, instead of this all-in, extremist, far-left, uncompromising attitude, will be far more efficient.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 00:44 by Zero Talent »


« Reply #126 on: July 24, 2022, 04:24 »
+2
https://www.monash.edu/medicine/news/latest/2021-articles/worlds-largest-study-of-global-climate-related-mortality-links-5-million-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures

Doesn't take account of indirect deaths where climate change is a contributing factor, for example the Syrian civil war. Not sure why this is a left vs right issue? Shouldnt the right be conservative (small c) and want to save the environment?

Very interesting new article on climate misinformation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62225696

"What the geniuses of the PR firms who work for these big fossil fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it."
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 04:45 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #127 on: July 24, 2022, 06:24 »
0
It's a left wing issue because the planet is the supreme "community".
Putting the interests of the community above the interests of the  individuals has always been the core of the (neo)marxist policies.

PS. I saw that report. I will rather trust the data reported by the WHO, against a study published by a random professor from some random university.
I am skeptical of a study that's suddenly claiming a number 33 times bigger than the common wisdom.

Be careful. PR money floats from multiple directions.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 07:21 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #128 on: July 24, 2022, 07:23 »
+2
To paraphrase Thatcher, there is no community. It is in the interests of billions of individuals to make climate change a high priority.

« Reply #129 on: July 24, 2022, 07:44 »
0
To paraphrase Thatcher, there is no community. It is in the interests of billions of individuals to make climate change a high priority.

Indeed! But she clearly didn't mean it as you put it.  ;)

It's not ok to sacrifice individuals in the name of the "community".
The prosperity of a community comes from the prosperity of individuals, not the other way around.
That's what Thatcher meant.

As I said before, there are many other urgent issues, impacting individuals and smaller communities, more than global warming. These issues must be pragmatically addressed first, or else global warming deniers will win the narrative.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 08:18 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #130 on: July 24, 2022, 11:46 »
+5
If there is one thing I can't stand hearing anymore, then it's the constant denying or downplaying of severe issues with the claim that these issues were not really bad and someone was making them appear more serious just so he could earn money with them. It's the same with the corona virus issue. "The parma industry just wants to make money!".   ::)
Oh my gosh. People actually want to make money and not work for free! What a shock! Are there people profiting financially from crises? Yes, of course! But it's not the pharma industry or the solar energy industry or whatever that is warning us about climate change or pandemics. It's scientist. And not just individual ones who, of course, get paid by various industries as well, but it's scientific consensus all over the world! One has to be nuts and nose deep in conspiracy theories to assume that prrofiting industries managed to manipulatre scientist all over the world to come to the same conclusions.
Also, why is it held agains one industry to want to make money, but not the other? Take Germany. One of the reasons we still haven't ditched coal mining is the constant whining about all the jobs that will be lost. So what's the plan? We keep supporting a not sustainable production of energy, so people don't lose jobs, creating new jobs in that industry all the time so we have a neverending cycle till we run out of coal and these people lose their jobs anyways? Why not instead focus on creating jobs with another energy? Solar energy? Wind energy? Geothermal energy? Biomass from plants? Hydropower? But, oh no, it's the evil sustainable energy industry that "just wants to make money" and manipulate us. Because the coal mining industry is a charity and does not want to make money at all.  ::)

Yes, someone profits from changes that would come with measures to fight climate change. But there is always also someone who profits from not taking these measures. Why not point fingers at these people? The ones who do not want the change, do not want to fight climate change, because it would mean they'd make less money? Why is it always the people who want to fight climate change that get blamed for "just wanting to make money", why not the people who want to fight these measures, because, just the same, they "just want to make money?" For example Porsche just successfully influenced german politicans to fight the EU wide stop of production of  fuel based cars. There sole motive to fight this change was the fear of losing profit. But people who want to fight climate change and would profit from it financially are somehow the bad guys? All of this doesn't make sense.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 14:15 by Firn »

« Reply #131 on: July 24, 2022, 14:10 »
+2
If there is one thing I can't stand hearing anymore, then it's the constant denying or downplaying of severe issues with the claim that these issues were not really bad and someone was making them appear more serious just so he could earn money with them. It's the same with the corona virus issue. "The parma industry just wants to make money!".   ::)
Oh my gosh. People actually want to make money and not work for free! What a shock! Are there people profiting financially from crises? Yes, of course! But it's not the pharma industry or the solar energy industry or whatever that is warning us about climate change or pandemics. It's scientist. And not just individual ones who, of course, get paid by various industries as well, but it's scientific consensus all over the world! One has to be nuts and nose deep in conspiracy theories to assume that prrofiting industries managed to manipulatre scientist all over the world to come to the same conclusions.
Also, why is it held agains one industry to want to make money, but not the other? Take Germany. One of the reasons we still haven't ditched coal mining is the constant whining about all the jobs that will be lost. So what's the plan? We keep supporting a not sustainable production of energy, so people don't lose jobs, creating new jobs in that industry all the time so we have a neverending cycle till we run out of coal and these people lose their jobs anyways? Why not instead focus on creating jobs with another energy? Solar energy? Wind energy? Geothermal energy? Biomass from plants? Hydropower? But, oh no, it's the evil sustainable energy industry that "just wants to make money" and manipulate us. Because the coal mining industry is a charity and does not want to make money at all.  ::)

Yes, someone profits from changes that would come with measures to fight climate change. But there is always also someoen who profits from not taking these measures. Why not point fingers at these people? The ones who do not want the change, do not want to fight climate change, because it would mean they'd make less money? Why is it always the people who want to fight climate change that get blamed for "just wanting to make money", why not the people who want to fight these measures, because, just the same, they "just want to make money?" For example Porsche just successfully influenced german politicans to fight the EU wide stop of production of  fuel based cars. There sole motive to fight this change was the fear of losing profit. But people who want to fight climate change and would profit from it financially are somehow the bad guys? All of this doesn't make sense.


Agree!

« Reply #132 on: July 24, 2022, 14:19 »
+2
Oh no. Even our poor old Monash University has got trashed! lol (its a public research university located in Melbourne Australia, with global rankings and breakthrough research including nerve stem cell research, the world's first IVF pregnancy, and many other areas. Its a pretty big place. Its library has 'over 3 million items, and it produces over 3,000 research publications each year.')

OK Zero, I know you've gone to the mattresses when you start with the old anti-marxist comments, and how much you value free enterprise. Tell us about what you would like done with the Ukranian War. Perhaps you can get that off your chest first?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 14:30 by Annie »

« Reply #133 on: July 24, 2022, 15:29 »
+4
Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to acknowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2022, 12:37 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #134 on: July 24, 2022, 15:31 »
0
.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 15:34 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #135 on: July 24, 2022, 15:52 »
+3
Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to ackowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

It is frightening - for a Central European - to see how much weight the topic of guns carries.

It is astonishing that the topic of climate change is at the bottom of the poll results.
I am absolutely sure that this will change very soon.

If the war in Ukraine escalates, or the political consequences of that escalate, perhaps humanity will no longer have to worry about climate change either. So it's true: this is a burning issue. But it is only more burning than the issue of climate change because we are better able to assess the reactions of people than the reactions of nature - of which we simply understand too little. We can't even comprehend the laws of nature with the most powerful computers. We can better put one and one together, what happens if a state leader, who has endless nuclear weapons, makes the wrong decision. We have zero idea what nature holds wide for us for our use of resources. But when in doubt, nature holds answers for us that are in no way inferior to nuclear weapons.

« Reply #136 on: July 24, 2022, 16:21 »
+1
...
Adopting a realistic, pragmatic approach to climate change, instead of this all-in, extremist, far-left, uncompromising attitude, will be far more efficient.

unfortunately, even such a plan - so heavily modified it would have only a slight effect has been defeated by Manchin (large holding in coal company & major recipient of fossil fuel donations) combined w mcconnell's declaration that he wont pass anything from biden

the only possible, but fading hope is that dems gain 1-2 senate seats to make manchin insignificant and hold onto the house

« Reply #137 on: July 24, 2022, 16:31 »
+4
https://www.monash.edu/medicine/news/latest/2021-articles/worlds-largest-study-of-global-climate-related-mortality-links-5-million-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures

Doesn't take account of indirect deaths where climate change is a contributing factor, for example the Syrian civil war. Not sure why this is a left vs right issue? Shouldnt the right be conservative (small c) and want to save the environment?
...

the republican party ceased being small c conservative long ago and is now only an extremeist, ideological party that has NO plans to do anything other than repeal the progress of the last decades -  eg, their concern for the fetus stops at birth -- they refuse to even consider actions that would help those they will now force to have unwanted children 

« Reply #138 on: July 24, 2022, 16:34 »
+4


It is frightening - for a Central European - to see how much weight the topic of guns carries.

It is astonishing that the topic of climate change is at the bottom of the poll results.
I am absolutely sure that this will change very soon.

the gun fetish frightens many of us in the US too!

i wish i could share your optimism about the politics of climate change, but, at best, the political response is "What? me worry?"  it's only going to get a lot worse 

« Reply #139 on: July 24, 2022, 19:59 »
+1
Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to ackowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

Thanks.

At least now we can discuss what the underlying problems are rather than just debating and attacking each other.

Economy is often the top priority in a lot of countries**, but its really sad though, that if in America, some think its a 'far-left extremist position' when this kind of thing is happening right now.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/california-fires-a-wildfire-is-burning-out-of-control-near-yosemite/b2d283ea-b12b-4af3-a441-aaaf36a1ab16#5


** Its the old "its the economy, stupid' reference.

("The economy, stupid" is a phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992. It is often quoted from a televised quip by Carville as "Its the economy, stupid." Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush. ... Clinton's campaign advantageously used the then-prevailing recession in the United States as one of the campaign's means to successfully unseat George H. W. Bush.) Source wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 20:27 by Annie »

« Reply #140 on: July 24, 2022, 22:48 »
+1
Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to acknowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

Thanks.

At least now we can discuss what the underlying problems are rather than just debating and attacking each other.

Economy is often the top priority in a lot of countries**, but its really sad though, that if in America, some think its a 'far-left extremist position' when this kind of thing is happening right now.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/california-fires-a-wildfire-is-burning-out-of-control-near-yosemite/b2d283ea-b12b-4af3-a441-aaaf36a1ab16#5


** Its the old "its the economy, stupid' reference.

("The economy, stupid" is a phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992. It is often quoted from a televised quip by Carville as "Its the economy, stupid." Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush. ... Clinton's campaign advantageously used the then-prevailing recession in the United States as one of the campaign's means to successfully unseat George H. W. Bush.) Source wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

Annie, my bad for not being clear enough. I am glad that adding that poll made my position more evident.

I hope that now it's also clear why I'm saying that putting climate change on top of the agenda is an extremist proposition.

Otherwise, yes, there are wildfires in Yosemite. This is nothing new. The first record dates from 1930.

https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm#:~:text=Since%201970%2C%20the%20National%20Park,in%20the%20park%20each%20year.
So giving one more example doesn't mean much.

Nevertheless, there are many other more compelling arguments proving that climate change is real, the first one I can remember being Al Gore's 2006 documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth".

But the bottom line is that voters seem to care for their daily bread, and 13 other issues, more than for climate change.
Maybe this is sad for you, but it's real.

Therefore, putting issue #14 on top of the agenda is a proposition that will lead to election losses.
That is sad.
Sad will be to see Trump or people like him seizing power, because the alternative is made of idealists or far-left extremists, who are failing to ackowledge the reality, to understand what their voters want.

Sad indeed!
 :-\
« Last Edit: July 25, 2022, 12:36 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #141 on: July 24, 2022, 23:37 »
+1
Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to ackowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

Thanks.

At least now we can discuss what the underlying problems are rather than just debating and attacking each other.

Economy is often the top priority in a lot of countries**, but its really sad though, that if in America, some think its a 'far-left extremist position' when this kind of thing is happening right now.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/california-fires-a-wildfire-is-burning-out-of-control-near-yosemite/b2d283ea-b12b-4af3-a441-aaaf36a1ab16#5


** Its the old "its the economy, stupid' reference.

("The economy, stupid" is a phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992. It is often quoted from a televised quip by Carville as "Its the economy, stupid." Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush. ... Clinton's campaign advantageously used the then-prevailing recession in the United States as one of the campaign's means to successfully unseat George H. W. Bush.) Source wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

Annie, my bad for not being clear enough. I am glad that adding that poll made my position more evident.

I hope that now it's also clear why I'm saying that putting climate change on top of the agenda is an extremist proposition.

Otherwise, yes, there are wildfires in the Yosemite. This is nothing new. The first record dates from 1930.

https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm#:~:text=Since%201970%2C%20the%20National%20Park,in%20the%20park%20each%20year.
So giving one more example doesn't mean much.

Nevertheless, there are many other more compeling arguments proving that climate change is real, the first one I can remember being Al Gore's 2006 documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth".

But the bottom line is that voters seem to care for their daily bread, and 13 other issues, more than for climate change.
Maybe this is sad for you, but it's real.

Therefore, putting issue #14 on top of the agenda is a proposition that will lead to election losses.
That is sad.
Sad will be to see Trump or people like him seizing power, because the alternative is made of idealists or far-left extremists, who are failing to ackowledge the reality, to understand what their voters want.

Sad indeed!
 :-\

After the world has burned to a crisp, and you and I are standing at the pearly gates, I'll turn to you and say, "See!". And you will say, "dam, you were right, I should have done more when I had the chance."  ;) ;D

Just joking.


Yes, we agree on some things, but this labelling "far-left", "far-right", "extremists", "idealists", "Maxists"  is what got America to its current position in the first place. "Divided we fall".

You, yourself, quoted something on a thread not so long ago (possibly one of those Ukrainian threads that was taken down), about all the tactics that aggressors use to undermine their opponents, and if I remember clearly, 'labelling' was one of them. Anyway, its an old text book tactic of how to divide people.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 23:48 by Annie »

« Reply #142 on: July 26, 2022, 10:28 »
+1
I actually do read stuff from world climate scientists.

Is that so?

I want to hear YOUR plan for how climate can be changed. There is lots we can do to clean up earth, but it still wont change the climate.

Except that it will. The release of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2, but also some other gases like methane) increase the temperature of a planet. Therefore, reductions in the release of greenhouse gases reduce this increase. There are also some gases that can reduce the temperature, like sulphur dioxide, although the side effects of that gas make it unfeasible to use it to control the climate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Have your world climate scientists never mentioned greenhouse gases?

Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.




« Reply #143 on: July 26, 2022, 10:47 »
+1





[/quote]


Today was the hottest day ever recorded in most of Europe.


Fun scientific facts:


Hottest temperature recorded in Europe was 48.0 C in Greece (Athens) on July 10, 1977.

US record: 10 July 1913 , 56.7 C

So climate changes didn't even manage to break the records from times way before them.

It appears you don't understand the difference between "weather" (localized measurements and occurrences) and "climate" (overall patterns and trends).

Fun scientific fact:

The theory of global warming in its core assumes maximum warming at the poles.

At the same time the average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88C over the past 50 years.

So it appears that you don't understand what I understand.  ;D




« Reply #144 on: July 26, 2022, 11:30 »
+6

Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

That's not a "scientific fact", or at least it's just a twisted part of it without looking at the whole picture.
It's true that natural resources cause high amounts of carbon, but, unlike human caused carbon it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere. It's a cycle where carbon is added and taken again from the atmosphere.
Any biomass which decomposes must first have grown  the CO2 released during rotting. It was first taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and then later added again.
It's all explained better than I could here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/


Fun scientific fact:

The theory of global warming in its core assumes maximum warming at the poles.

At the same time the average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88C over the past 50 years.

Can't comment on this, as I don't understand where these numbers are coming from. I found numbers of  the average temperatures in the Arctic rising by 3.1C over the past 50 year. (Source:  Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme ). I did find one article with your numbers, but it didn't specify where exactly the number was suppose dto come from.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2022, 11:33 by Firn »

« Reply #145 on: July 26, 2022, 11:38 »
+3

Fun scientific fact:

The theory of global warming in its core assumes maximum warming at the poles.

At the same time the average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88C over the past 50 years.

So it appears that you don't understand what I understand.  ;D
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-arctic-faster-planet.html
"Arctic warming three times faster than the planet"
"In less than half a century, from 1971 to 2019, the Arctic's average annual temperature rose by 3.1C, compared to 1C for the planet as a whole."


https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
"Over the past 30 years, the Arctic has warmed at roughly twice the rate as the entire globe, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. Most scientists agree that this rapid warming is a signal of human-caused climate change."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2020-arctic-air-temperatures-continue-long-term-warming-streak
"2020 Arctic air temperatures continue a long-term warming streak"
"The unusual Arctic warmth of October 2019September 2020 continues a seven-year-long streak of the warmest temperatures recorded since at least 1900. Since the year 2000, Arctic temperatures have consistently been above the 19812010 average, and nine of the last 10 years have seen temperatures at least 1.8F (1C) above that average. Over October 2019September 2020, according to the Arctic Report Card, the annual average surface air temperature for land areas between 60N and 90N was 3.4F (1.9C) above the 19812010 average.

Since 2000*, Arctic temperatures have risen about twice as fast as global temperatures."

« Reply #146 on: July 26, 2022, 11:41 »
+1
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
"CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it has windows that allow some of the infrared energy to escape without being absorbed. In addition, water vapor is concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earths surface."
"The burning of fossil fuels affects the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century. Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius. We are already increasing the amount of energy that bounces back to the Earth. Because of the greenhouse effect, this is causing global warming with its many destructive impacts."

Leaving these here for people who actually want to look into the claims.


« Reply #147 on: July 26, 2022, 12:49 »
+2
Here is an observation:

Russia is rather happy with the Arctic getting warmer because it opens up the Northern Sea Route, as a global shipping artery:
https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/09/19/why-russia-is-ambivalent-about-global-warming

Russia's immediate interest is to maintain its main exports as the world's main energy source.

Additionally, Global Warming will make agriculture possible on a lot of currently unused Russian land:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russia-climate-migration-crisis.html

Global Warming is good for Russia, and its very active troll farm is tasked to give a hand to climate change deniers.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2022, 13:25 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #148 on: July 26, 2022, 13:23 »
+1
 ;D


Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to prove that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers summary (which became the take home message for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report


https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.670.5931&rep=rep1&type=pdf
« Last Edit: July 26, 2022, 13:34 by Lizard »

« Reply #149 on: July 26, 2022, 13:53 »
+1
Too bad this facts don't fit in the equation in this summers European record temperatures

;D



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2793 Views
Last post October 17, 2007, 13:34
by epixx
22 Replies
7004 Views
Last post October 29, 2007, 01:05
by null
25 Replies
11066 Views
Last post January 29, 2010, 02:21
by lagereek
22 Replies
7185 Views
Last post December 08, 2012, 19:22
by CD123
16 Replies
4908 Views
Last post October 21, 2014, 10:49
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle