Download Climate Change Report awaiting Trump's "Signature"

[Asher Kelman]

CLIMATE : SHARE

Read the Draft of the Climate Change Report​

A draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public but was obtained by The New York Times, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. The report was completed this year and is part of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. AUG. 7, 2017



Download PDF, a PDF from the Academy of Sciences, released by the New York Times!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE Executive Summary
1 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM
2 CLIMATE SCIENCE SPECIAL REPORT (CSSR)
3 Executive Summary
4 Introduction
5 New observations and new research have increased scientists’ understanding of past, current,
6 and future climate change since the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA3) was
7 published in May 2014. This Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) is designed to capture
8 that new information, build on the existing body of science, and summarize the current state
9 of knowledge.
10 Predicting how climate will change in future decades is a different scientific issue from
11 predicting weather a few weeks from now. Weather is what is happening in the atmosphere in
12 a given location at a particular time—temperature, humidity, winds, clouds, and precipitation.
13 Climate consists of the patterns exhibited by the weather—the averages and extremes of the
14 indicated weather phenomena and how those averages and extremes vary from month to
15 month over the course of a typical year—as observed over a period of decades. One can
16 sensibly speak of the climate of a specific location (for example, Chicago) or a region (for
17 example, the Midwest). Climate change means that these weather patterns—the averages and
18 extremes and their timing—are shifting in consistent directions from decade to decade.
19 The world has warmed (globally and annually averaged surface air temperature) by about
20 1.6°F (0.9°C) over the last 150 years (1865–2015), and the spatial and temporal non-
21 uniformity of the warming has triggered many other changes to the Earth’s climate. Evidence
22 for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.
23 Thousands of studies conducted by tens of thousands of scientists around the world have
24 documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers;
25 disappearing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea level; and an increase in atmospheric
26 water vapor. Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions
27 of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate
28 changes.
29 The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related, weather extremes, as well
30 as the warmest years on record for the globe. Periodically taking stock of the current state of
31 knowledge about climate change and putting new weather extremes into context ensures that
32 rigorous, scientifically based information is available to inform dialogue and decisions at
33 every level.
34 Most of this special report is intended for those who have a technical background in climate
35 science and is also designed to provide input to the authors of the Fourth U.S. National
36 Climate Assessment (NCA4). In this executive summary, green boxes present highlights of
37 the main report followed by related bullet points and selected figures covering more scientific

 

[Asher Kelman]

Please read the entire report and the riveting data in the included illustrations!

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

A huge asteroid is going to hit the earth and cause it to break into a gazlion billion trillion tiny pieces which will become space dust.

James

 

[Jerome Marot]

A huge asteroid is going to hit the earth and cause it to break into a gazlion billion trillion tiny pieces which will become space dust.

But that could take another billion years, which is quite a long wait. In the mean time, we might not want to damage the ecosystem which sustains our particular life form.

 

[Andy brown]

James, I'm feeling some scepticism coming regarding climate, climate science, etc. In anther thread you were denouncing the ability of weather forecasters. I want to offer a challenge: tell me where you live and I'll give you a forecast for the average weather for the next 12 months and I reckon I can do it to within 5 % for the year. You know 5% accuracy for average maximums, minimums and mean temperatures for the whole year, monthly if you like. I don't live there but I do trust the weather experts and climate scientists to nail it. Deal or no deal?

 

[James Lemon]

James, I'm feeling some scepticism coming regarding climate, climate science, etc. In anther thread you were denouncing the ability of weather forecasters. I want to offer a challenge: tell me where you live and I'll give you a forecast for the average weather for the next 12 months and I reckon I can do it to within 5 % for the year. You know 5% accuracy for average maximums, minimums and mean temperatures for the whole year, monthly if you like. I don't live there but I do trust the weather experts and climate scientists to nail it. Deal or no deal?

Andy

Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Your offer sounds rather vague either you can do it or you can't? However I would not be interested in 5% but if you could get that number down to about 1.5% to 3% you might get my attention.

Best, regards
James

 

[Antonio Correia]

But that could take another billion years, which is quite a long wait. In the mean time, we might not want to damage the ecosystem which sustains our particular life form.

Absolutely !

 

[Asher Kelman]

Andy

Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Your offer sounds rather vague either you can do it or you can't? However I would not be interested in 5% but if you could get that number down to about 1.5% to 3% you might get my attention.

Best, regards
James

James,

I have been a scientist all of my professional life. In medical research, where folks lives are on the line, we take a P value of < 0.05 as the limit of acceptability. (See the caveat below as a footnote).

Using this, (albeit artificial boundary), for plausibility, (not "proof", mind you), we have succeeded in advancing the quality and success of medical care as all new treatments are filtered this way.

Now you come up with a defiant new hurdle to jump over. But what is the logical or mathematical basis for this super-stringent test before you take interest, considering what is claimed to be at stake.

Moreover in the nearly 600 page report I referenced, the data has been stringently filtered and yet comes out as supporting the strong conclusion of serious and even life-threatening man-made climate change!

If you have seriously deadly pneumonia, (and other
antibiotics already didn't work), would you really
demand rigid proof that clindamycin would have more
than a 97.5% reliable certainty of saving your life?
​

Just to refresh your mind, here is a discussion on plausibility and confidence limits to brush up on. Hopefully others will provide further clarification of what merits an approach to plausibility and approaching "certainty" or "proof" in scientific study.

A simple Trumpian brash dismissal of science, be it "round earth", "evolution", "gravitational waves" or "man-induced global warming", is unacceptable and self evident as flippant and ill-considered.

If, on the other hand, as a highly educated person and qualified engineer, you have derived some logical basis for your stringent tests of < 0.025 as the innacuracy you allow for proof of argument as to prediction of weather "accurately", then bring us up to speed.

Asher

* We have to also look at the p values for all the studies performed, not merely the ones accepted for publication on peer-reviewed prestigious medical journals. This is because only the most highly ranked medical centers tend to easily get published "negative" studies showing some treatment or drug has little value, whereas most well-documented research papers showing advances in treatment get easily published. However, there is perhaps a 5% chance that new drugs with positive benefit are not uniformly positive in say 100 studies from all sources. So that's why we need to know about all studies performed and not just the ones that are accepted for publications, as even 5% of useless drugs tested could falsely appear to be beneficial if enough tests are done, and as a positive test, this has an increased chance of being published!

 

[Asher Kelman]

James,

Are you at all serious? Or perhaps you think it's humerous just taking a meathead contrary view, so as to make you appear like a contrarian!l, an "Archie Bunker-Trump hybrid", living in the Unibomber's abandoned wood shack, somewhere in the forlorn wilderness?

Let me go further, in your challenge, you give no target parameters. What exactly would you measure? Whether or not there was rain? How many mm per minute or per day? Over what area, how many measurements? What sample size of dates to be predicted and examined for rain?

Would you demand 50, 100 or 1,000 separate days?

What amounts and combinations of precipitation or speed of wind or temp rise would constitute accurate prediction of weather.

In all this, how do you come up with a figure of <2.5 %?

Asher

 

[Michael_Stones]

James,

I have been a scientist all of my professional life. In medical research, where folks lives are on the line, we take a P value of < 0.05 as the limit of acceptability. (See the caveat below as a footnote).

Using this, (albeit artificial boundary), for plausibility, (not "proof", mind you), we have succeeded in advancing the quality and success of medical care as all new treatments are filtered this way.


Asher

Asher, I too have been a scientist all my professional life and will continue to be one after formal retirement later this year. I'm far less convinced than you are by the 'magic' of p < .05 or a more extreme probability figure. The two types of databases I work are close to a technical ideal of 'census level', which means observations from nearly everyone in specified populations. The numbers of people range from about 5,000 to over 100,000, with the numbers of observations analysed in different models usually limited to about 5-10 variables, plus inclusion of pertinent interactions. With databases as big as this, believe me, the likelihood of not getting p < .05 is close to zero. In other words, the obtained probabilities in a statistical model of a large database are nearly all at p < .05 or beyond. What this means is that a statistical effect is usually significant even if the relative discrepancy between people showing one trend or another is close to 50% (e.g., 49% to 51%). If this ain't bad enough, statistical significance with small samples is rarely meaningful if the purpose is to generalize to a larger population. A more appropriate index of statistical importance is effect size, which means the proportion of overall variability accounted for by a given variable or interaction.

It's for reasons like this that findings are inconsistent upon replication in many major studies in disciplines like social psychology and epidemiology. One type of database I've worked with for nearly 40 years is notable because statistical modelling outcomes by myself or other groups of researchers has proved replicable throughout this time. The main reason is that the models account for something like 98% of the variance we try to explain. In studies that show inconsistency upon replication, the explained variance is usually way, way lower, < 10% in many studies, even in prestigious medical journals.

Now I know little about the methodology and theoretical background of research on climate science. But I do get worried when reports by proponents suggest that data essential to the Paris Agreement are faulty: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449. It makes me wonder how good the data were that led to this agreement. There clearly must be an imperative to collect good data and use appropriate analyses.

Over the years, there have been many examples of Doomsday scenarios promoted by scientists and advocacy groups, with support from government and industry. I remember previous scenarios that the world's oil supply would be used up by now, famine would wipe out large populations in Africa, AIDS would do the same in Africa and beyond, computers would crash and havoc would ensue because of the millennium bug. Most of these scenarios did not happen because of the use of good science for purposes of remediation. It bothers me that we now have climate change deniers that dismiss science they do not understand for reasons I do not understand. As far as I remember, there were few such deniers for preceding doomsday scenarios.

A scenario that worries me more than climate change concerns the obesity epidemic, examples of which I see every day. A debate has begun about whether medicine and nutritional science contributed to this epidemic because of a scientific mistake over 60 years ago: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-science-of-saturated-fat-a-big-fat-surprise-about-nutrition-9692121.html. The 'mistake' was to link 'unhealthy eating' with saturated fat rather than carbohydrates by obtaining dietary information during a period when the sample did not eat their regular diet. The jury is out as yet but over 200 Canadian physicians recently petitioned the Canadian Government to change the Canadian Food Guide accordingly. We'll see what happens next.

Cheers
Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mike,

Thanks for your reply. So you might then agree with me that the challenge made by James with the criteria for defeating a null hypothesis would be 0.25! The number of variables, sample sizes and actual ranges of measurement would have to be specified according to some defendable statistical model!

Obesity is a serious problem but not an existential threat to numerous living species on this planet.

I do hope you have the time to read at least part of the linked report so as to give feedback on the quality of the statistical criteria that the conclusions depend on. That would be most helpful as I do not have the experience and skills to make that evaluation with any authority, by myself

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

It bothers me that we now have climate change deniers that dismiss science they do not understand for reasons I do not understand. As far as I remember, there were few such deniers for preceding doomsday scenarios.

There were deniers of the preceding doomsday scenarios and, actually, they were right since the predicted dooms did not happen in the extent they were predicted. Therefore, we should expect the number of deniers to increase with each failed prediction, shouldn't we?

 

[Asher Kelman]

There were deniers of the preceding doomsday scenarios and, actually, they were right since the predicted dooms did not happen in the extent they were predicted. Therefore, we should expect the number of deniers to increase with each failed prediction, shouldn't we?

Jerome,

The shift of religious practice by population growth (and conversion) to the most "religious" and conservative sectors, might be important in this debate. We see this amongst Christians, Jews and Muslims. In the USA Baptist and Evangelicals and allies who identify themselves as "Christian" as opposed to Catholic, Presbyterian and allied churches, are very much concerned with denial philosophy of a spectrum of issues that seem to them inconsistent with literal understanding of the Holy Bible writings!

So we should therefore also consider here the effect of "conservative" religious groups whose "anti-science" bias comes from dogma. The latter is centered primarily on denial of evolution as a likely truth ......(or the several billion year history of the planet, or that humans are really just another example of ordinary animals with more advanced language and tools, ability to outrun any other animal long distance and cool oneself by sweating)!

At least in the USA, the "Christian" right carries such anti-science views and an anti-global warming st stance fits in with trust in a deity to not destroy the earth. After all that promise was made after the "Great Flood"! My father wouldn't purchase life insurance as it implied a distrust in God's loyalty to someone who put his faith 100% in prayer, charity and good deeds. That in a way might explain the rise in climate denial, as religious groups, especially the Christian Right expand their reach.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

But that could take another billion years, which is quite a long wait. In the mean time, we might not want to damage the ecosystem which sustains our particular life form.

Jerome

. Sure it could but what about unforeseen circumstances or some other type of catastrophic event that could take place next week? Yet folk would like me to believe " Environmental Armageddon" and the Paris agreement is somehow supposed to save us? I don't think so! They profess to be wise but became fools. Did you know that it will take another 40 to 50 years to decommission the Fukushima nuclear power plant. I am certain that the disaster has many adverse effects on the eco system.

James

 

[Andy brown]

So James first you were saying the weather forecasters have no clue then you say 5% accuracy is too easy. You're being a hypocrite and an antagonist. You're the one looking like a fool. Honestly the climate change warnings are real and dangerous. Half the Great Barrier Reef is nearly for fook's sake! The climate change warnings are a bit like you're doctor saying smoking may not kill you but it probably will. It usually does. The greenhouse effect is the simplest of concepts - keep burning trillions of tons of previously buried stored carbon and it acts like putting Perspex panels on your roof and guess what, it warms up. If you don't get that, you're not only a fool but an ignorant idiot. Sorry, no other way to say it.

 

[James Lemon]

So James first you were saying the weather forecasters have no clue then you say 5% accuracy is too easy. You're being a hypocrite and an antagonist. You're the one looking like a fool. Honestly the climate change warnings are real and dangerous. Half the Great Barrier Reef is nearly for fook's sake! The climate change warnings are a bit like you're doctor saying smoking may not kill you but it probably will. It usually does. The greenhouse effect is the simplest of concepts - keep burning trillions of tons of previously buried stored carbon and it acts like putting Perspex panels on your roof and guess what, it warms up. If you don't get that, you're not only a fool but an ignorant idiot. Sorry, no other way to say it.

Andy

First ,you make a lot of assumptions because I don't recall saying any such thing. Second, people get killed or drop dead for all types of reasons whether or not they smoke. Maybe a super bug? Third Canada absorbs 4 times more CO2 than it produces so maybe we should be sending you a bill? Sorry you feel that way Andy but If you really believe that burning previously buried carbon is the cause of "Environmental Armageddon" then you are not well informed at all. Furthermore since the concept is so simple according to you then all the mental kings and giants like yourself shouldn't have a problem. No?

Best, regards
James

 

[Andy brown]

James, you're arguing like a two year. I won't be wasting any more energy on you.

 

[Asher Kelman]

James,

I couldn't have imagined someone would pronounce such dismissive views on settled science. Just read the report and let me know the parts that are in error. I will then track down the original data and get Mike to look at it! He has the training. Until then, science has spoken.

At least until there is other more persuasive data. What we do know for certain is that the ability of the global ecosystem to maintain its status quo has ended for the foseable future. We are in a period of dynamic change.

It won't affect you, as you are neither a butterfly, a polar bear nor a native inhabitant of an island currently being disrupted by severe changes in temperature or being drowned by rising seas. I won't effect me either as I can afford to pay more for anything that will become more expensive. However, millions of folk on subsistence in low lying places will be inundated in the next 20 years!

But our lives won't change one iota! So you are correct, from the point of privileged persons like us, all this worry about global warming has no immediate relevance and we could be more at risk from a news chopper dropping out of the sky onto our dinner table at supper time!

So please read the report and determine what is false and let us know.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

James, you're arguing like a two year. I won't be wasting any more energy on you.

Hey Andy

Argument's are not part of my life but that would be probably too difficult of a concept for you to comprehend. Anyway maybe you can have nice fight with your wife tonight? Enjoy the weather!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hey Andy

Argument's are not part of my life but that would be probably too difficult of a concept for you to comprehend. Anyway maybe you can have nice fight with your wife tonight? Enjoy the weather!

James,

Argument is essential for a cognitive individual to benefit from their potential intelligence. It is the ability to evaluate alternatives using strict rules that make sense, not which are necessarily intuitive or culturally adopted from associates or affinity groups.

I was engaged in debate and argument on scholarly legal questions from the age of 12 in Yeshiva, studying Talmud. The ability to debate, evaluate and reason is the hallmark of an educated person. I am open to any argument that is backed up by data and logic.

It is unacceptable to me, that you as an engineer can dismiss a major body of work by thousands of highly competent scientists with a wave of the hand as if some nuisance fly needs to be swatted away.

Tell me you are reading the linked report and I will be very much relieved that you are in fact open enough to examine the data.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

James,

Argument is essential for a cognitive individual to benefit from their potential intelligence. It is the ability to evaluate alternatives using strict rules that make sense, not which are necessarily intuitive or culturally adopted from associates or affinity groups.

I was engaged in debate and argument on scholarly legal questions from the age of 12 in Yeshiva, studying Talmud. The ability to debate, evaluate and reason is the hallmark of an educated person. I am open to any argument that is backed up by data and logic.

It is unacceptable to me, that you as an engineer can dismiss a major body of work by thousands of highly competent scientists with a wave of the hand as if some nuisance fly needs to be swatted away.

Tell me you are reading the linked report and I will be very much relieved that you are in fact open enough to examine the data.

Asher

Hi Asher

According to who? Oh yes arguments well I will try to explain my logic too you. As you know it takes two people to argue so one can choose to leave the argument therefore choosing not to argue. However I believe in communication! Arguments are about wanting to be right and making the other person wrong. I don't see value in arguments they are sometimes hostile they don't accomplish anything and in most cases people don't even know what they are arguing about. So there is a difference between communication and arguing.

Yet you and others want to label me as a climate denier simply because I express opinions or because I might not agree with you or kiss your ass. Oh yes I forgot people aren't allowed to have a difference of opinion about the current state of affairs. Yet you want me to believe that man has somehow screwed up the climate and now man is going to control the weather? Why should I trust such a notion? How long as man been trying to dominate the earth? Did it ever occur to you or anyone else that there are many scenarios that can and will take place in the unforeseen future that will resolve things on there own through process and developments? Did you know that it will take another 40 to 50 years to decommission the Fukushima nuclear power plant? Gee I wonder how that disaster is effecting our ecosystem?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher

According to who? Oh yes arguments well I will try to explain my logic too you. As you know it takes two people to argue so one can choose to leave the argument therefore choosing not to argue. However I believe in communication! Arguments are about wanting to be right and making the other person wrong. I don't see value in arguments they are sometimes hostile they don't accomplish anything and in most cases people don't even know what they are arguing about. So there is a difference between communication and arguing.

I assure you arguments do not require more than one person! Arguments are simply a logical proposal in several stages, a train of reasoning to support a position. One can argue by oneself one train of thought then match by an equal attempt with a contrary point of view. This is the method by which we decide whether or not to cross the road, buy a particular car, commit to a contract, marriage or even an heroic act!

When I mention "arguments" I mean the above and it's NEVER a fight to prove myself right! I do not own the world or the weather or your future! I am very unimportant to the nth degree!

But both you and I have the unfettered power to argue in our brains, privately, as to what is real and what is fantasy. We have, as an educated and elite section of our modern society, evolved, in the past 2,000 years and especially in the past 300 years, pretty reliable scientific methods which have stood the test of time. The same methods that allow us to design new drugs and polymers, also allow us to examine patterns in nature.

I do not argue with you. You must do this on your own. That's all I ask of an educated person from a first class society. I don't seek to persuade you or recruit you or put you down. But I just cannot accept or respect anti-science "opinions" when the data has not been even examined by you as you are certainly capable of doing.

You may be stubborn, but you cannot escape the choices of either admitting that you have not bothered to look at the data seriously, (because truthfully it does not threaten your interests at the moment), or actually studying it, when you are skilled enough to do so.

The latter course, I'd offer, would represent you best, (as the thinking man I have met and spent time with)! But if you insist on not bothering to look at the data, say that, but without dismissing what you have not examined!

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

I assure you arguments do not require more than one person! Arguments are simply a logical proposal in several stages, a train of reasoning to support a position. One can argue by oneself one train of thought then match by an equal attempt with a contrary point of view. This is the method by which we decide whether or not to cross the road, buy a particular car, commit to a contract, marriage or even an heroic act!

When I mention "arguments" I mean the above and it's NEVER a fight to prove myself right! I do not own the world or the weather or your future! I am very unimportant to the nth degree!

But both you and I have the unfettered power to argue in our brains, privately, as to what is real and what is fantasy. We have, as an educated and elite section of our modern society, evolved, in the past 2,000 years and especially in the past 300 years, pretty reliable scientific methods which have stood the test of time. The same methods that allow us to design new drugs and polymers, also allow us to examine patterns in nature.

I do not argue with you. You must do this on your own. That's all I ask of an educated person from a first class society. I don't seek to persuade you or recruit you or put you down. But I just cannot accept or respect anti-science "opinions" when the data has not been even examined by you as you are certainly capable of doing.

You may be stubborn, but you cannot escape the choices of either admitting that you have not bothered to look at the data seriously, (because truthfully it does not threaten your interests at the moment), or actually studying it, when you are skilled enough to do so.

The latter course, I'd offer, would represent you best, (as the thinking man I have met and spent time with)! But if you insist on not bothering to look at the data, say that, but without dismissing what you have not examined!

Asher

Asher

The Paris Agreement is a wild fantasy that is for sure and nothing more than a flim flam scam! Is it a requirement that I believe the data? Though the number 97% of scientific consensus has good marketing value ,very precise !

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher

The Paris Agreement is a wild fantasy that is for sure and nothing more than a flim flam scam! Is it a requirement that I believe the data to get along.

James

James,

Don't pivot! You are not some politician evading direct questions. We are simply talking about you, James Lemon either admitting that you have no personal interest in checking the validity of the referenced major scientific report linked above or you are indeed prepared to look at at least part of it.

I never referenced any Paris accord! I am only interested in folk reading for themselves and arguing in their own heads the stated logic in the referenced article.

There is no problem simply stating that you, as a person in Canada, (with a lot of life already lived and no substantial risk of any climate change altering your own personal status or lifestyle), choose to have no interest in a phenomenon that won't likely alter the rest of your life! I would not judge you.

However I do judge harshly folk who dismiss science without examination, analysis or cause!

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

Jerome

Sure it could but what about unforeseen circumstances or some other type of catastrophic event that could take place next week?

You seem to believe that, since we may be run over by a bus next week (and indeed we may, many people die of traffic accidents every day), we should not care about breaking a leg by jumping out of the window today. I see things differently.

Did you know that it will take another 40 to 50 years to decommission the Fukushima nuclear power plant?

Yes. We have had a thread about the subject at the time. It is here:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13654

Oh yes arguments well I will try to explain my logic too you. As you know it takes two people to argue so one can choose to leave the argument therefore choosing not to argue. However I believe in communication! Arguments are about wanting to be right and making the other person wrong. I don't see value in arguments they are sometimes hostile they don't accomplish anything and in most cases people don't even know what they are arguing about. So there is a difference between communication and arguing.

Then you may enjoy that cartoon which I already posted in another thread about post truth:

 

[James Lemon]

You seem to believe that, since we may be run over by a bus next week (and indeed we may, many people die of traffic accidents every day), we should not care about breaking a leg by jumping out of the window today. I see things differently.

No. Those are just simple facts Jerome.

All the earth worshipers like to use statement that 97% of all the scientists consensus's on climate change or global warming all agree. The statement is false but it is a good marketing tool and I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes a fact.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Those are just simple facts Jerome.

I am not sure what "facts" you are thinking about.

 

[Asher Kelman]

....

All the earth worshipers like to use statement that 97% of all the scientists consensus's on climate change or global warming all agree. The statement is false but it is a good marketing tool and I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes a fact.

James,

Why do you bring in Windmills to joust?

I challenged no one with such statements. I challenged you to, yourself, address the ONE extraordinary document I linked to! If you are not going to address that directly, then your comments are off topic.

I never discuss a different image when you post your images. I am always considerate to reference to what you post. So do that too in this case!

Please refer to the linked document and either admit you simply have no skin in that game, as you are in Canada and shielded, (as I am, personally, by living a protected lifestyle in California)!

Or else commit to looking at the linked report and reporting back.

That, alone is the topic of the conversation and not claims of other people you want to talk about instead!

Can you please do that?

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

James,

Why do you bring in Windmills to joust?

I challenged no one with such statements. I challenged you to, yourself, address the ONE extraordinary document I linked to! If you are not going to address that directly, then your comments are off topic.

I never discuss a different image when you post your images. I am always considerate to reference to what you post. So do that too in this case!

Please refer to the linked document and either admit you simply have no skin in that game, as you are in Canada and shielded, (as I am, personally, by living a protected lifestyle in California)!

Or else commit to looking at the linked report and reporting back.

That, alone is the topic of the conversation and not claims of other people you want to talk about instead!

Can you please do that?

Asher

Asher

I am currently involved in numerous ongoing projects with tight schedules. I have a difficult time getting past your bullet points. I am not much interested in the past or looking out many years into the future. I just don't have the time. BTW are you folks in California still dumping your poop into the ocean? Just curious. Looks like a huge report though.

James