The New Climate Reality

Hardly.

 

Albert was not with deniers of science.

 

Right. Because that is self-evident and indisputable.

But you appear to be unaware that 97%-98% is not "all." Neither is 99% or 99.999%.

I've never disputed that climate is influenced by humans. You just can't tell the difference between "climate is influenced by humans" and "climate is controlled by CO2." What happened to you that made you unable to tell the difference between two entirely different statements? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you drank the CAGW Kool-Aid.

Quote me claiming that man is not influencing climate change.

See? All you can do is make $#!+ up. It's always the same.

 

No, it just has to be massively destructive. There is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that CO2 from fossil fuel use could cause a catastrophe.

No it isn't. It's just an ordinary day on Planet Earth.

Your projecting.

 

That is just baldly false. It is in fact Willard McDonald, the author of this appalling load of trash, who is a con artist that loves to cherry-pick information and come to conclusions not supported by science.

OK, I read it. It is a grossly dishonest and anti-scientific smear job with no basis in fact or logic. Utterly disgraceful.

 

It most certainly has, whether you call 1000 years the long term or 1,000,000.

And those conditions include numerous cycles with various periods and amplitudes.

But a minor one.

Every time you use the term, "denier" you prove you are anti-science, anti-logic, and anti-truth.

 

Climate change denier....

 

Wow, so we should side the lower 2% when it comes to climate science . Amazing.

 

Gee, a post of a chart emphasizing the acceleration of species lost during the industrial revolution to show that it isn’t occurring ? Wow. How does that work ? Wonder what has happened after 1980.

 

Albert Einstein would never have fallen for algore's fraud.

He would have noticed the discrepancy between the polar circles and quickly ascertained the correct answer (assuming he understood plate tectonics, which was not figured out until after he died).

Why does one earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

The ice is all on land near an earth pole, and land moves.

Climate change explained.

If earth had two polar oceans, it would have no ice.

If it had two polar continents, two antarcticas, it would have 80% more ice.....

Co2 has nothing to do with it....

 

People think stuff all the time. It doesn't make it rational. Show us the repeatable experiment that demonstrates that ~5-6% of additional yield leads to the outcome they believe. It doesn't change the fact, nor have you admitted that climate actually is SUPPOSED TO change. It has, it does, and it will. Why do you expect that somehow your arrogance gets to change that? So, again, the only one here who is actually denying anything observably correct, is you.

 

Note: If I don't respond to a post, that doesn't mean I have nothing further to say. Sometimes it's just a matter of what's worthwhile to me considering that some posters can't get it or don't seem to want to get it.

 

The ozone layer side bar doesn’t support your argument, it defeats it. Now that we all know that failed efforts on the part of climate change deniers, it’s time to retreat as another CC denier loses again. No, I don’t get irrationality.

 

They don't believe in evolution, for example...They allege man changes the climate and they also believe man must stop this alleged changing of the climate.

 

Presenting some facts which proves the existence of climate change catastrophe due to too much CO2 and not facts produced by an erroneous model that could never happen or has never happened would be a good start.

 

Absolutely hysterical that you would use the Antartica increase in ice to combat CC. You don’t know the average temp of that area is below the freezing point of water all the time…do you. The general warming of the area supports more water in the atmosphere as any weather guy knows which decreases the salinity of the ocean water…thereby creating more ice.

cc deniers obviously don’t know the difference between areas having land masses and those that don’t…hilarious. But thanks again for bring it up. It gives another chance to debunk the rights “critical thinking” skills.

More ice in the Antarctic means WARMER AVERAGE temps….
Ha ha foiled again. But keep trying.

 

And

Between April and September, a research station sitting on a high plateau in Antarctica, registered an average temperature of minus 78 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 61 degrees Celsius). That’s the coldest temperature recorded since record keeping began in 1957, and about 4.5 F (2.5 C) lower than the most recent 30-year average, according to The Washington Post.

 

Huh ?

 

Another piece of evidence that supports CC. The extremes are getting greater. “ Lower then most recent 30 average “ Another fact. I see no mention of the arithmetic average, the mean, either. CC started long before 1957….hence, the industrial revolution.

 

I’m lost by this comment. The Arctic is a tundra, Antarctica is an ice cap. They respond differently to rising temps. Why are you pretending sonething that isn’t true ? “ Two Antarctica’s ice caps with increased ice would be more evidence of global warming. Please, you’re denying your own ideas.

 

Another illustration that cc deniers don’t distinguish weather vs climate. But it’s fun correcting you.

 

Who is “ they” ? And no, man does not “ change” the climate but he does effect the rate at which it does change. . Big difference. If you don’t talk about rate of change in climate change, you’re not in the right debate, btw, No man in his right mind would suggest setting off atomic bombs to change the weather either. Weather isn’t climate.

 

The problem with so many alarmist narratives is that they are junk science created just for PR purposes. A case in point:

Behold the walrus publicity stunt the WWF calls ‘science’
Posted on October 18, 2021 | Comments Offon Behold the walrus publicity stunt the WWF calls ‘science’
All you can do is laugh, really. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has been pushing for years to position itself as a valid scientific authority but the kinds of projects they get involved with generally have little to do with real science and more to do with promoting their brand and its doomsday climate change narrative. The most recent example is a ‘Count walrus from space‘ ploy that is enlisting elementary school aged children and other members of the public to count Atlantic walrus from satellite photos, which the Washington Post obligingly promoted last week (proving the WWF massive free publicity).


WWF roped someone from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) into the four year scheme, which makes it seem like legitimate, real science. With this initiative, the WWF are strongly pushing a story that walrus throughout the Arctic are threatened by climate change due to melting Arctic sea ice. They have been doing this actively since 2015, as seen with their collaboration with Netflix and Sir David Attenborough in the ‘Our Planet’ Pacific walrus extravaganza that blew up into a massive controversy. I have more to say on that in my next book, whose publication is unfortunately behind schedule but will hopefully be out soon.

The first problem with this plan is that evidence is lacking to support the claim that walrus have been harmed by recent declines in sea ice. Despite current low numbers, Atlantic walrus are more abundant today than they were 100 years ago, after decades of commercial hunting reduced populations to near extinction levels (Born et al. 1995; Wiig et al. 2014).

The second problem is that walrus at land haulouts in summer or fall are notoriously difficult for professional scientists to count even from aerial photographs. The idea that children as young as nine years old can contribute to generating a more accurate count from satellite images is ludicrous.

Continue reading →

 

The biggest problem with we the alarmed make, is even letting fact-less arguments enter in the picture. If your idea isn’t supported by a consensus veiw of modern science, it’s a fairy tale.