placeholder

Run by the left? What are you on about?

It's not a promising sign when someone resorts to playing word games with a scientific issue. I try to be careful and specify either human caused climate change or anthropogenic climate change. Trying to exploit a lapse, particularly when the context is clear, is just a cheap deflection. I had adequately explained why using 20000 years as a denominator instead of 7000 was disingenyuous. What exactly don't you understand about that? The Michael Mann Hockey Stick has since been confirmed by many independent studies using different data. This link will take you to a convenient compendium of those studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years And obviously it continues to be confirmed by this century's global temperature averages. Much of the denialism nonsense began after 1997-1998. That was a year of a very powerful El Nino. El Ninos give a powerful boost to global temperature. So, subsequently when temperatures declined from that year, the denialists claimed that it was due to global cooling. Because, apparently, in Denialist World, regression analyses and trendlines aren't a thing. Well, it's 2023 now, and despite the fact that there haven't been any El Ninos since 2016, that 1997-98 el nino year is cooler than all of them. In fact, it doesn't even qualify for the top 10 warmest years anymore.

Let's start with the last thing first. Don Easterbrook is a crank who predicted global cooling starting at about 2000 Comparison of "skeptic" geologist Don Easterbrook's projections of global cooling from his presentation at the 2008 American Geophysical Union annual meeting (green and blue) with observational data from the NASA GISS land-ocean dataset (red), showing the time period 1900 to 2100. Easterbrook's temperature projections can be compared directly to the measurements in the overlapping period 2000 to 2010, where the IPCC and virtually all climate scientists have predicted continued warming. Easterbrook's projections are inaccurate because he doesn't use a physics-based approach but simply relies on correlations from past climate patterns and largely ignores the now-dominant effect of human greenhouse gas emissions. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=23 Here's the actual record of global temperature average since 1900 The "study" of Easterbrook's that you cite was published in 2011. Was it even peer reviewed? In fact the medieval warm period was not global nor was the Little Ice Age No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

And here's another reason. Poland receives the most net EU funding of any EU member. By far.

If not for Al Gore there wouldn't be this program to slow and ultimately reverse climate change? Funny. People falsely credit Al Gore with claiming he invented the Internet. The fact is that the it's the overwhelming consensus of the climatological community that significant damage is already being inflicted by climate change and if it climbs over 1.5 degrees it starts to get a lot worse.

Another reason it's ridiculous is that Poland is a member of NATO. It's not going to risk membership in NATO in order to share a lot more border with Russia than it already does. If you meant that the west of ukraine is almost all polish, that's false, It's about 25% ethnically polish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine

Well, even if he did say it, who cares? He's not a scientist. If that's what he said, his remarks don't reflect the opinion of the huge majority of climatologists. Certainly they don't reflect the consensus of the IPCC. So what's your point?

Actually, it's Russia making the unfounded claim that Poland is planning to annex parts of Ukraine. You seem to be repeating a distorted version of Russian disinformation by adding in that there were negotiations under way.. And that you claim "for sure something both countries think about as it seems very logical" is very revealing about where you are coming from. But is clearly ridiculous. You think Poles want to absorb millions of Ukrainians into their polity? That's got to be a political disaster in the making. Why Russia Keeps Insisting That Poland Is Preparing to Partition Ukraine The Russian leadership has repeatedly made the outlandish claim that Poland is preparing to annex territories in western Ukraine. Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) director Sergei Naryshkin recently made this assertion, and he was not the first to do so. Over the past months, Russian President Vladimir Putin several times stated that the idea of absorbing Ukraine is still alive and well in Poland, while Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev warned that Warsaw “is already making moves to seize western Ukrainian territories.” https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585 The article goes on to point out that Russia has also claimed that Hungary and Romania want a piece of Ukraine, too.

But there was nothing in that which affected the validity of the evidence. In effect, he took advantage of the fact the Trump's White House regime was so disorganized that it didn't know how to stall. If this approach tainted the evidence gathered, that would be news to the judge adjudicating the case.

I didn't quote your original statement which didn't specify. But why is Al Gore's opinion even relevant. The IPCC, composed mainly of scientist/reviewers has published reviews of a huge amount of climatological research repeatedly. Those are the expert judgments worth paying attention to. Citing non-scientists opinions, or the hypocritical behavior of wealthy individuals has no bearing on the science. They're just transparent attempts at deflection.

You got a link for that? Or was that also a rumor? Or just an outright falsehood?

Actually, it began rising before he became mayor. Hmmm... And as for out control.... still premature to make that claim

And unless you were listening to voices in your head, is there an external verifiable source for this rumor. If not, this could be just a worthless piece of disinformation. The kind used to poison discussion.

I don't know how to get through to you why your 3.4mm reference doesn't work as a projection. according to that article the rate is increasing. So it won't be 3.4 mm i the future but your projection uses 3.4mm.

Unfortunately, I can't go back and check your original comment because due to an act a moderator, lots of B.S. posts have been deleted. Including yours.

No. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/

Really? https://www.statista.com/statistics/864736/knife-crime-in-london/

I didn't know Al Gore was a "Noble Prize winner and scientist" In what peer-reviewed journals did he publish his research?

As the report clearly noted, it CO2 still increased in the atmosphere. Just less than it otherwise would have done. And even if there a decrease, human caused climate change is already baked in. Now the issue is how to limit the rise over the next few hundred years, not reverse it.

The reasoning behind your argument also applies to Social Security. In other words, it's an argument that lost the war a long time ago. And clearly, using moral arguments about the obligation of government to help those in need would be wasted upon you.

Thank you for sharing with us your belief.

Apparently, to your way of thinking, issues like global warming, pollution, and healthcare, among others, all take a backseat to the transgender issue. This is exactly how Republicans exploit emotionalism over rational self interest to gull Americans. Get the voters' support on the hot button issues but on the issue that will truly affect their welfare, protect the rich instead. Sad.

What you still don't note is that the rate if sea level rise is increasing. As for your claim that "as told by Noble Prize winner and scientist, they were supposed to be melted already", I'm calling B.S. on that. And even if there was such a person, and I can find no evidence that he or she exists, that would be an extreme minority position. But please, if you have such evidence, provide a link to it.

This has got to be one of the most blatantly disingenuous comments I've ever seen posted. You compute your average by using 20 thousand years as your denominator. But 90% of the rise occurred over about 7000 years as rising temperatures accelerated the melting of the glaciers. During that time the average rate of increase was 15mm per year or 1.5 centimeters. And from about 3000 years ago until some time after the advent of the industrial revolution, sea levels were quite stable. As was the global temperature average. Only in the last 100 years or so has the rise resumed at a much higher pace. What's more , the rate of increase is getting higher.

It may be too late to stop the rise above 1.5 degrees centigrade. But that doesn't mean it's too late to stop the rise to 2 degrees or to 2.5 degrees. The projected rate of damage increases geometrically the the higher it goes. And your contention about low carbon energy sources being high cost is way way outdated. Renewables are already mostly cheaper than coal, even when coal was cheap before the spike in 2022. And they are now very competitive with natural gas.