Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

[Sunsettommy]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

 

[BackAgain]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

To amplify — just a bit — this thread’s OP, I offer an excerpt which summarizes the findings:

It is hard to read in this photo format unless you adjust the size. But, the link to the report is found highlighted in the OP.

This is worthy of more study and debate. But the climate cultists here are likely to simply pre-condemn it.

 

[Woodznutz]

Mexican weather report: "Chile today but hot tamale".

Polish weather report: "It will be light today followed by darkness toward evening."

*Poland may have updated their meteorological technology.

 

[gtopa1]

Reported here a day or two ago.



Greg

 

[BULLDOG]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

Saying that there are some flaws in determining whether man made global climate change is a valid event is not the same as saying man made global climate change is not a valid event

 

[Sunsettommy]

Saying that there are some flaws in determining whether man made global climate change is a valid event is not the same as saying man made global climate change is not a valid event

The problem is that YOU have no evidence that it is increasingly dangerous and there is no increase in weather related disasters which is why your climate cultists have no credibility.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation
by Bart Verheggen
Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased in my opinion. Still, they find a strong consensus on human causation of climate change: 87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes (question v007). Responses were given on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In line with Bray (2010) a response between 5 and 7 is considered agreement with anthropogenic causation. In their 2008 survey the level of agreement based on the same question was 83.5% and in 2013 it was 80.9%.

 

[BULLDOG]

The problem is that YOU have no evidence that it is increasingly dangerous and there is no increase in weather related disasters which is why your climate cultists have no credibility.

It has no credibility among flat earthers, those who think vaccines will kill you, maga cult members, and other assorted anti-science groups, but is widely accepted by sane people.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation
by Bart Verheggen
Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased in my opinion. Still, they find a strong consensus on human causation of climate change: 87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes (question v007). Responses were given on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In line with Bray (2010) a response between 5 and 7 is considered agreement with anthropogenic causation. In their 2008 survey the level of agreement based on the same question was 83.5% and in 2013 it was 80.9%.

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation

Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased…

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

To amplify — just a bit — this thread’s OP, I offer an excerpt which summarizes the findings:

View attachment 1150628

It is hard to read in this photo format unless you adjust the size. But, the link to the report is found highlighted in the OP.

This is worthy of more study and debate. But the climate cultists here are likely to simply pre-condemn it.

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation

Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased…

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation
by Bart Verheggen
Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased in my opinion. Still, they find a strong consensus on human causation of climate change: 87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes (question v007). Responses were given on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In line with Bray (2010) a response between 5 and 7 is considered agreement with anthropogenic causation. In their 2008 survey the level of agreement based on the same question was 83.5% and in 2013 it was 80.9%.

Epic Fail as you didn't address the post one articles content.

It remains unchallenged.

 

[Stryder50]

Saying that there are some flaws in determining whether man made global climate change is a valid event is not the same as saying man made global climate change is not a valid event

More correctly "man made global climate change" is minuscule as an "event", and is more likely to have a slight positive effect rather than a negative one.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

 

[Sunsettommy]

It has no credibility among flat earthers, those who think vaccines will kill you, maga cult members, and other assorted anti-science groups, but is widely accepted by sane people.

Now you are all over the place the topic is about a report on Climate issues.

You show that YOU have nothing against the post one article.

It remains unchallenged.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Epic Fail as you didn't address the post one articles content.

It remains unchallenged.

1a

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Epic Fail as you didn't address the post one articles content.

It remains unchallenged.

He is an admiral. Is he climatologist?

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL,

Post one article remains unchallenged.

 

[Sunsettommy]

He is an admiral. Is he climatologist?

Post one article remains unchallenged.

Look up Milton Humason.

 

[Sunsettommy]

1a

Post one article remains unchallenged.