Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 55
Latest Activity: on Wednesday

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Odd results of Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Nov 1. 76 Replies

Take an amusing quiz to learn about unexpected effects of Climate Change. After each multiple choice question, you see if you were right (and the right answer if you weren't).…Continue

Tags: odd effects of Climate Change

Lung cells killed by forest fire smoke

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Oct 25. 0 Replies

If you live in an area impacted by forest fire smoke, ramp up your lung protection.Pollutant emitted by forest…Continue

Tags: wildfire smoke, lung toxicity

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on February 14, 2017 at 6:16pm

TED The magic washing machine | Hans Rosling

Hans Rosling: "Me and my mother said 'thank you industrialization, thank you steel mills, thank you power station, and thank you chemical processing industry that gave us time to read books.'"

I disagree with his politics but I appreciate this sentiment. Lots of things that might be bad for the environment enrich our lives enormously. 

He died recently.

Comment by Donald L. Engel on February 12, 2017 at 12:16am
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 11, 2017 at 5:18pm

Catastrophic fire conditions for New South Wales, Australia this weekend.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 10, 2017 at 2:05pm

Australia swelters, you know coal-loving Australia. So they're blaming the power blackouts on wind energy. Are they too much like the USA?

image source

Comment by Joan Denoo on February 10, 2017 at 3:51am

Hi, Čenek, it has been a long time since I last saw a post from you. 

I don't know whether the Karl study is valid or not or if the study was rushed to meet the deadline of an Obama program. Maybe climate scientists had a motive to produce an invalid study. 

What I do know is the snow pack is not as deep as in previous years and drought conditions exist downslope from the Western mountain ranges. I also have seen films of the melting glaciers from Mt. Kilamangero in Africa to the Himalayas in India resulting in a lack of water to farms at lower elevations. The films of glaciers that I once saw as a young woman in Alaska are virtually gone from the valleys leaving terminal moraines where once existed huge glaciers. The photos of Glacier Park don't look as it did when I took the children there in 1975. 

I live in a forest in northeastern Washington state that is drying out and presenting fire hazards as soils dry out and trees become stressed, then infected with insects and diseases. 

Our well's water level has dropped from its normal depth and will require deeper drilling. This in spite of the fact that we are located on an aquifer that drains from two huge and deep lakes left by the Ice Age. 

Extinctions occur that we can observe from the bird migratory counts that take place each year. 

I realize you don't trust scientific studies because of the knowledge of fraudulent data, nor can you and I trust anecdotal observations. However, bluebirds seem to have disappeared from my part of the country. Even with the effort to build and place proper nesting boxes for them, the population has declined over the years.

So, let us assume John Bates revealed political tampering with climate change data. If it is true, I would like to hang the tampering scientists by their thumbs. If not true, Bates could use a bit of a swing. 

What difference does it make if my, and others' observations are accurate? 

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on February 10, 2017 at 2:00am

Retired NOAA whistleblower John Bates and his revelations of political tampering with climate change data.

"Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists.  This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply.  During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda."

Maybe true, maybe not. Motive is difficult to ascribe. Honestly I don't really care.

But is the science good? Not according to David Rose, an investigative journalist.  

"NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend."

Full article archive link:

I find it interesting that a respected man like Rose could only publish his article in a tabloid. That is the strength of the climate change political clique.

All of which might mean a return to the global warming haitus scientific consensus. Just a few years ago, before the Karl 'study' reinterpreted the data, the consensus was far different. See this article from back then. Trust not 'consensus' only trust fact.

Interestingly enough Snopes felt the need to weigh in on this with an opinion piece from a non scientist. Replete with links to flim flam site Gawker its a great example of rhetoric being more important than facts for some of the climate enthusiasts.

What do you all think?

Comment by Plinius on February 4, 2017 at 12:44am

I love that one, Ruth!

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 3, 2017 at 10:22pm
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on February 3, 2017 at 10:17pm

Good-bye forever to 400ppm CO2.

image source
Comment by John Elder on January 26, 2017 at 7:24am

High importance - please see this site relevant to all:


Members (55)


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service