A new “report” by the prestigious National Academies engages in heavy fossil fuel benefit denial in order to claim that climate danger is worse than ever.
Focusing on only one type of data instead of looking at the whole picture is a form of cherry-picking data to spread a biased viewpoint. Thanks for exposing it. I lost confidence in the National Academies of Science years ago.
Thank you, sir, for an interesting and challenging post. Some questions:
First, you cite the Academies’ claim that ‘climate-induced harm’ has gotten worse in recent decades and will continue to ‘worsen.’ Does the report specify what “harm” means? Is “harm” defined in clear, objective terms? Does it provide specific examples, supported by direct evidence? Did the report define ‘worsen’? Did it provide direct evidence of its ‘worsening’ claim?
Second, you note that “the National Academies’ report claims that climate-related illnesses and deaths are increasing in both severity and geographic range across the United States.” Does the report specify those illnesses? Does the report provide a clear and indefensible link between those illnesses and climate? Does the report provide examples of climate-related illnesses that are reduced by a warming climate?
Talk is cheap, as they say, and whiskey costs money. That the National Academies relies on smoke, mirrors, and hand-waving to make its points is sufficient reason to question their veracity.
Thanks for posting. Just more propaganda being shoveled by ideologues masquerading as “scientists.”
Focusing on only one type of data instead of looking at the whole picture is a form of cherry-picking data to spread a biased viewpoint. Thanks for exposing it. I lost confidence in the National Academies of Science years ago.
Thank you, sir, for an interesting and challenging post. Some questions:
First, you cite the Academies’ claim that ‘climate-induced harm’ has gotten worse in recent decades and will continue to ‘worsen.’ Does the report specify what “harm” means? Is “harm” defined in clear, objective terms? Does it provide specific examples, supported by direct evidence? Did the report define ‘worsen’? Did it provide direct evidence of its ‘worsening’ claim?
Second, you note that “the National Academies’ report claims that climate-related illnesses and deaths are increasing in both severity and geographic range across the United States.” Does the report specify those illnesses? Does the report provide a clear and indefensible link between those illnesses and climate? Does the report provide examples of climate-related illnesses that are reduced by a warming climate?
Talk is cheap, as they say, and whiskey costs money. That the National Academies relies on smoke, mirrors, and hand-waving to make its points is sufficient reason to question their veracity.