FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

[GordMay]

I know that threads discussing climate eventually get closed, but this just released (Nov 23/18) government report deserves the light of day.


FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT - Volume II
The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) deliver a report to Congress and the President no less than every four years that:
“1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program…;
2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity;
and
3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.”


The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) fulfills that mandate in two volumes.
This report, Volume II, draws on the foundational science described in Volume I, the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR).
Volume II ➥ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Volume I presents an assessment of the physical science underlying the above report:
Volume I ➥ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

[Tornadosailing]

The problem with this, as with all science which effects public policy or corporate profits, is that it's always biased.

Whenever I see one of these reports, I simply ask myself "what would happen to the scientist's funding (and therefore livelihood) if their conclusions were different?"

What would happen to scientists funded by tobacco companies if they found that cigarettes caused cancer?

What would happen to scientists funded by the sugar industry if they concluded that sugar makes us fat?

And so it is with government funded climate science. What would happen to the $2 Billion annually in the US alone if they found that humans did not cause climate change? What would happen if they found that humans had some impact, but it was negligible and all the government effort in the world wouldn't fix it?

In the case of tobacco and sugar, the writing is on the wall for these sort of "studies". As for climate science, the cracks are growing. It took 50+ years for tobacco and sugar "science" to fall. I believe climate science is well on it's way. Some climate scientists are currently predicting a mini ice age for the next few decades, while at the same time other climate scientists are putting forth a plan to blot out the sun to reduce global warming. People are tiring of the constant contradictions. People are tiring of being told every single natural disaster is our fault. People are tiring of decades of disastrous predictions that don't come to pass. People are tiring of a "science" that seemingly has no bounds to what it will "cause", all in the name of government taking larger and larger chunks of our earnings to combat.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Here we go again....

[S/V Illusion]

The issue which has always been avoided is how much of the current warming trend is actually attributable to human causes. As that fraction is the only portion we can control, it is fundamental to any discussion but typically omitted from the debate.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

The issue which has always been avoided is how much of the current warming trend is actually attributable to human causes. As that fraction is the only portion we can control, it is fundamental to any discussion but typically omitted from the debate.

Ah....but amigo
It is indeed omitted and that IS on purpose by those seeking to gain power and riches.

[Woodland Hills]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

The issue which has always been avoided is how much of the current warming trend is actually attributable to human causes. As that fraction is the only portion we can control, it is fundamental to any discussion but typically omitted from the debate.

Actually that is only an issue and is only omitted by the Fox News type climate deniers. The fact based scientific community has been in agreement for years as to responsibility, you just wouldn’t know it if you get your opinions assigned by the Three Dolts on a Divan.

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

Actually that is only an issue and is only omitted by the Fox News type climate deniers. The fact based scientific community has been in agreement for years as to responsibility, you just wouldn’t know it if you get your opinions assigned by the Three Dolts on a Divan.

what political tripe.
and those thinking a tax will help that which planet is going to do are sheep just waiting to be sheared.
our only constant is change.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

Actually that is only an issue and is only omitted by the Fox News type climate deniers. The fact based scientific community has been in agreement for years as to responsibility, you just wouldn’t know it if you get your opinions assigned by the Three Dolts on a Divan.

You will notice of course which side of the debate goes on attack first...the side that fears debate...that must silence it...those in the MMGWC. Bingo...I just won $1

[Lake-Effect]

-sigh -

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

The problem with this, as with all science which effects public policy or corporate profits, is that it's always biased.

Whenever I see one of these reports, I simply ask myself "what would happen to the scientist's funding (and therefore livelihood) if their conclusions were different?"

What would happen to scientists funded by tobacco companies if they found that cigarettes caused cancer?

[ The scientists employed by big tobacco knew before most that tobacco causes cancer. Their job was to help suppress or discredit that knowledge ]
....
People are tiring of a "science" that seemingly has no bounds to what it will "cause", all in the name of government taking larger and larger chunks of our earnings to combat.

This is why we can't have nice things, like a sustainable planet.

[Kenomac]

We are once again experiencing record cold here in New England which began a full month early. Temps in the single digits F and well below zero C in the middle of November. This is normally our February weather, and there’s an arctic blast now covering much of the US.

Despite all this and the snow landing on their heads, the global warming crowd wants it to be colder and to pay higher taxes.

Who’s in denial of reality?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Despite all this and the snow landing on their heads, the global warming crowd wants it to be colder and to pay higher taxes.

Who’s in denial of reality?

Which of course is what this entire issue is about....taxes and power.

Ask those Rioting in France how they like the fuel tax increaes as required by the Paris Climate Deal? Bingo...the game is over.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Who’s in denial of reality?

The subject is global warming, not Northeast US warming during ONE weekend.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The subject is global warming, not Northeast US warming during ONE weekend.

For someone care to explain how averages work....na....nevermind.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Can we just delete this thread now and save us all a lot of heartache and time and waste

[a64pilot]

Forget the issue of if global warming, climate change etc is happening or not.
Just accept that it is for a minute.

What is to be done about it? Give up the SUV’s and 10,000 sq Ft houses?
Not me,somebody else has to give up their stuff, not me.