Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Is it just me? Or do others see the irony of Forum members having a healthy free-for-all on climate change - while the UN IPCC's top boffins stubbornly refuse a public debate with fellow scientists who are deniers or sceptics?

 

Science is never "settled", as the global warming lobby defensively insists. If it were, we would still believe the earth was flat, that the Sun circled our planet, and that bleeding a patient half to death was the best way to cure him.

 

The high priests of climate change seek to impose their apocalyptic forecasts upon the rest of us like the immutable tenets of a medieval religion. Increasing numbers of dissenters among the scientific community are treatedas heretics and apostates and cast into the academic wilderness.

 

What, one can't help asking, have these climate catastrophe merchants got to hide?
 

Well, for starters, the inconvenient truth (sorry, Al) that the the climate apocalypse scenario has little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with reshaping our existing way of life under a socialist-style new world order of "sustainable development" run by an unelected scientific technocracy. 

 

You don't have to take my word for it. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to bring crash capitalism.

 

She let the cat out of the bag at a UN news conference in Brussels, when she declared, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution".

 

The climate may not be changing, but lots of other things soon will be - and for the worse - unless we wake up to what is really going on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

She's not the only one. Read similar before.

I have given up looking for sense from the new religion, and frankly there are more worrying things for me to be concerned about.

If there is one positive thing about being old it's that I won't be around too much longer, and I thank the deity that I didn't have children to suffer the craziness.

[overherebc]

On 2/21/2020 at 8:43 AM, overherebc said:

If the sea-ice is frozen sea water then when it melts it will make no difference to sea levels.

If the ice melting is from glacier ice that forms on land then it's adding to the water already in the sea so levels will rise.

@nauseus

 

Interested to find out what's funny??

Edited February 22, 2020 by overherebc

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

@nauseus

 

Interested to find out what's funny??

I know you are.

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I know you are.

Don't know much about me, sea ice and land based ice then do you??

[overherebc]

I'll put you on my ignore list and answer you in 5 years on your 16th birthday.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

I'll put you on my ignore list and answer you in 5 years on your 16th birthday.

Ok. All this over the wrong emoji. Whatever.

[URMySunshine]

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

Ok. All this over the wrong emoji. Whatever.

Folk have been suspended for the wrong emoji at the wrong time ! This is no laughing matter. It's a Rule 10 violation. I  am an  expert.  ????????????????????????

Only against a mod response though. 

[brokenbone]

On 2/21/2020 at 9:59 AM, bristolboy said:

Sure. Lazard, one of the pre-emininent financial advisory and asset management companies in the world, is promoting propaganda about renewable energy. Do you understand that this company lives and dies by its financial advice to its investors? Again, what you're claiming is that Lazard is promoting "pure illiterate propaganda" to their investors, who will then go broke? So Lazard is committing corporate suicide all in order to advance renewable energy? How ridiculous can you be?

And what you've got is an outdated video from a solitary engineer against the high powered team of experts Lazard employs to arrive at its conclusion? It is to laugh.

they will say whatever it takes to sell their merchandise,

perhaps the mindless subsidies does makes it profitable,

but these unreliable sources of energy does not hold a candle

to tested and true energy sources, its wishful thinking as of today

and will be for a long time to come.

one day we will be able to harvest sun energy in reliable and sufficient quantities,

but that is very far in the future, i think its going to be hard to beat nuclear energy,

but perhaps popularity will win over economy.

 

i dont think anyone is actually thrilled over using imported oil for energy,

it too is unreliable in the sense we are dependent on 'someone else',

not to mention trade deficit, but it beats windmills and the kind of solar harvest we deploy today. the sun powers the entire climate on earth and it emit enough energy

that we could power anything we ever want, but the tech just isnt here right now

to make it feasible, we need to engineer a dyson swarm in combination with much more efficient receivers, and a new way to store energy, like superconducting storage,

but that is way in the future,

a rocket launch today is also too freaking expensive, and the energy needed has too much mass, we also need a new propulsion system, we are too primitive for sun energy.

read up, no, watch youtube from the people that object renewables as of today,

you have lapped up the propaganda and do not know of what you speak

 

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, URMySunshine said:

Folk have been suspended for the wrong emoji at the wrong time ! This is no laughing matter. It's a Rule 10 violation. I  am an  expert.  ????????????????????????

Only against a mod response though. 

????

[AussieBob18]

Conclusion: The anthropogenic global warming we can now expect will be small, slow, harmless, and even net-beneficial. It is only going to be about 1.2 K this century, or 1.2 K per CO2 doubling. If the parties are not able to demonstrate that we are wrong, and if His Honor accepts that we have proven the result set out publicly and in detail here for the first time, then the global warming scare was indeed based on a strikingly elementary error of physics.

 

The avowedly alarmist position too hastily adopted by governments and international bureaucratic entities has caused the most egregious misallocation of resources in history.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we call time on a 50-year-old scam, in which a small number of corrupt and politicized scientists, paid for by scientifically-illiterate governments panicked by questionable lobby-groups funded by dubious billionaires and foreign governments intent on doing down the West, and egged on by the inept and increasingly totalitarian news media, have conspired to perpetrate a single falsehood: that the science was settled.

 

Well, it wasn’t.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/

 

 

[Lacessit]

On 2/20/2020 at 5:39 PM, Krataiboy said:

The deflection comes not from deniers and sceptics, but from pro-climate change scientists who hide behind a specious "settled science" claim and refuse all invitations publicly to debate the key issues.

97% of scientists support the concept of anthropomorphic emissions causing climate change, which is supported by empirical evidence. Of those 97%, probably only 10% are actively involved in climate research. The proposition climate change is a milch cow for attracting research funding is a lie. If anything, politicians worldwide are trying to strangle funding. They prefer supporting the fossil fuel industry.

Peer review is a cornerstone of science. Any scientist publishing material on the subject of climate change is subject to peer review for the purpose of validation. The 3% of scientists who publish articles attempting to deny climate change are not peer-reviewed.

[AussieBob18]

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

97% of scientists support the concept of anthropomorphic emissions causing climate change, which is supported by empirical evidence. Of those 97%, probably only 10% are actively involved in climate research. The proposition climate change is a milch cow for attracting research funding is a lie. If anything, politicians worldwide are trying to strangle funding. They prefer supporting the fossil fuel industry.

Peer review is a cornerstone of science. Any scientist publishing material on the subject of climate change is subject to peer review for the purpose of validation. The 3% of scientists who publish articles attempting to deny climate change are not peer-reviewed.

Fake News Story:  

    
A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”

 

And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.  But given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. 

 

However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

 

Remember - until Einstein claimed it was wrong in 1905 and Eddleston proved it in 1919, for almost 200 years all the 'scientists' agreed that Newtons' Laws of Physics were 100% correct and that a planet called Vulcan existed. 

 

 

[Krataiboy]

The 3% of scientists who publish articles attempting to deny climate change are not peer-reviewed.

 

What do you expect when to publish anything that challenges the accepted IPCC orthodoxy on climate change can be a one-way ticket academic oblivion?

 

Look up Judith Curry, and learn from her harrowing experiences of daring to dissent from the prevailing narrative.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Krataiboy

[pkspeaker]

meanwhile in greenland:

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/jan-2020-coldest-ever-day-in-greenland-65c-comes-goes-no-one-notices/

[WalkingOrders]

Note that the headline is NOT what the scientist said, and that folks is called propaganda!

[pkspeaker]

https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/17/new-study-greenlands-largest-glacier-has-rapidly-thickened-since-2016-fueled-by-1-5c-regional-ocean-cooling/

[WalkingOrders]

I see we have degenerated once again into dueling YouTube videos. If its warming those who have money prepare yourselves, move to to safety, those who don't - you're dead! Mother nature always seeks equilibrium. Case closed planet saved, Next!

[Lacessit]

20 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

The 3% of scientists who publish articles attempting to deny climate change are not peer-reviewed.

 

What do you expect when to publish anything that challenges the accepted IPCC orthodoxy on climate change can be a one-way ticket academic oblivion?

 

Look up Judith Curry, and learn from her harrowing experiences of daring to dissent from the prevailing narrative.

AFAIK the denier scientists are well supported by interests such as the fossil fuel industry, so peer review does not matter to them.

I can't see from her history that she has suffered anything. Her choice to dissent, she's retired from academia and still feeding the trolls.

 

 

[Lacessit]

21 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

meanwhile in greenland:

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/jan-2020-coldest-ever-day-in-greenland-65c-comes-goes-no-one-notices/

I love it when folks use a single data point to prove their case, thereby destroying it.

Try looking at the heat cells over Australia instead for the last three years.

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

AFAIK the denier scientists are well supported by interests such as the fossil fuel industry, so peer review does not matter to them.

I can't see from her history that she has suffered anything. Her choice to dissent, she's retired from academia and still feeding the trolls.

 

 

Judith Curry runs a company on risk analysis to Corporations,  regarding global climate. You needlessly bash someone you know little about. Spend some time chatting on her website to real scientists. All sides post over there. Judithcurry.com

[WalkingOrders]

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

She's not the only one. Read similar before.

I have given up looking for sense from the new religion, and frankly there are more worrying things for me to be concerned about.

If there is one positive thing about being old it's that I won't be around too much longer, and I thank the deity that I didn't have children to suffer the craziness.

I have given up on these people. I am actually now hoping for rapid temperature change as I am certain only conservatives will survive!

[Krataiboy]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

AFAIK the denier scientists are well supported by interests such as the fossil fuel industry, so peer review does not matter to them.

I can't see from her history that she has suffered anything. Her choice to dissent, she's retired from academia and still feeding the trolls.

 

 

AFAIK. . .  kind of says it all, really, about the validity your ludicrous, unsupportable libel on the tens of thousands of reputable scientists who dissent from the official climate change orthodoxy.

 

Judith Curry did not "choose", as you disingenuously suggest, to be a dissenter. As an ethical scientist her only "choice" was to follow wherever the empirical evidence led, which is exactly what she did.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Krataiboy

[brokenbone]

36 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Judith Curry runs a company on risk analysis to Corporations,  regarding global climate. You needlessly bash someone you know little about. Spend some time chatting on her website to real scientists. All sides post over there. Judithcurry.com

thanks, that has got to be the only site i have seen where all commentors

are down to earth https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/13/plausible-scenarios-for-climate-change-2020-2050/#more-25721

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

AFAIK. . .  kind of says it all, really, about the validity your ludicrous, unsupportable libel on the tens of thousands of reputable scientists who dissent from the official climate change orthodoxy.

 

Judith Curry did not "choose", as you disingenuously suggest, to be a dissenter. As an ethical scientist her only "choice" was to follow wherever the empirical evidence led, which is exactly what she did.

Tens of thousands? Where?

I suppose that's why corporations and financial institutions world-wide are withdrawing from the fossil fuel industry, doing their due diligence on risk, and refusing to extend loans on new coal mines. It's only governments that are continuing the charade. Looks like your tens of thousands are failing to persuade them. But then, perhaps they are smarter than you.

[WalkingOrders]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Tens of thousands? Where?

I suppose that's why corporations and financial institutions world-wide are withdrawing from the fossil fuel industry, doing their due diligence on risk, and refusing to extend loans on new coal mines. It's only governments that are continuing the charade. Looks like your tens of thousands are failing to persuade them. But then, perhaps they are smarter than you.

I know this may hurt, but there is no climate war taking place. There is a debate over how much, why, and what the impact is, as well as well as IF it could be slowed, and SHOULD it be attempted to be slowed, as well as should developed nations pay for lessor developed nations to change their practices burning fossil fuels or not via economic incentives.  There are many unknowns. There is NO settled science. There are very smart people with differing opinions, that are not bad people, there are likewise MANY who are simply periscoped on gathering data.  

 

For sure what many object to is this politicization of the issue, where it is tied to everything that has to do with Democrat fund raising to make it seem like it's life and death, and that every time a tornado touches down somewhere it is a result of climate change. Including the parents of a young girl polluting her mind, including textbooks at University and High school telling fabrications all for future votes. It is disgusting. 

 

Just focus on the science and stop screaming. There is no fuel in existence to replace fossil fuels, there is no justified reason to stop using them, and you and I have no control over what China and India, or Indochina does. The United States has met its goals. 

 

There is a natural progression that markets follow that will move from Fossil fuels, when alternatives come available, but simply ranting and raving does not make them suddenly appear. There are other environmental reasons that lead to their use, if and when they come available. 

 

This is not about forcing someone to their knees to proclaim "I believe" as that does not change anything. Let science do it's thing. People here scream as if they want to start murdering the global population or something. The last time oil hit over $105 a barrel food riots broke out in the world. And maniacs want to do what? Stop shipping? OK fine.  Their are Anti-Globalist Nationalist movements afoot. How about we produce grow and consume locally and save lots of fuel? I don't hear that one too much from the globalists who want everything shipped around the world to maximize profits. This is a big issue that is not about simple asking for people to declare they believe!

[WalkingOrders]

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

97% of scientists support the concept of anthropomorphic emissions causing climate change, which is supported by empirical evidence. Of those 97%, probably only 10% are actively involved in climate research. The proposition climate change is a milch cow for attracting research funding is a lie. If anything, politicians worldwide are trying to strangle funding. They prefer supporting the fossil fuel industry.

Peer review is a cornerstone of science. Any scientist publishing material on the subject of climate change is subject to peer review for the purpose of validation. The 3% of scientists who publish articles attempting to deny climate change are not peer-reviewed.

There is a lot of information out there you can find that discusses exactly how political getting something into a peer reviewed journal has become. 

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

.  

 

For sure what many object to is this politicization of the issue, where it is tied to everything that has to do with Democrat fund raising to make it seem like it's life and death, and that every time a tornado touches down somewhere it is a result of climate change. Including the parents of a young girl polluting her mind, including textbooks at University and High school telling fabrications all for future votes. It is disgusting. 

 

Just focus on the science and stop screaming. There is no fuel in existence to replace fossil fuels, there is no justified reason to stop using them, and you and I have no control over what China and India, or Indochina does. The United States has met its goals. 

 

 

 

 

I'm a retired research scientist, and I'll stop screaming when posters on TV show even a minuscule understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which, loosely translated, says there are no free lunches.

As for polluting the minds of children, how about the millions that receive religious instruction daily?

Electricity derived from solar and wind power is the fuel of the future. Admittedly not for aircraft, but everything else.

The US has met its goals? Trump appoints a fossil fuel executive as Secretary of the EPA. Yeah right.

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

There is a lot of information out there you can find that discusses exactly how political getting something into a peer reviewed journal has become. 

Information from right-wing status quo sources, I'd say at a rough guess. Alternative facts is the popular expression.

[WalkingOrders]

On 2/19/2020 at 8:00 PM, Bluespunk said:

“Entomologist Dr. Ovid Byron speaking to television journalist, Tina, who says, re: global warming, "Scientists of course are in disagreement about whether this is happening and whether humans have a role."
He replies:
"The Arctic is genuinely collapsing. Scientists used to call these things the canary in the mine. What they say now is, The canary is dead. We are at the top of Niagara Falls, Tina, in a canoe. There is an image for your viewers. We got here by drifting, but we cannot turn around for a lazy paddle back when you finally stop pissing around. We have arrived at the point of an audible roar. Does it strike you as a good time to debate the existence of the falls?”

 

Barbara Kingsolver, Flight Behavior

A few years ago, I had come to believe that the end was near, that the climate change was going to kill life on earth, that fracking was going to destroy America, that fossil fuels usage needed to stop right now or we are all going to die. 

 

I then asked myself as serious question? Do I really believe that?  Because if I do then I need to act as a revolutionary would act. I need to take Direct Action to stop this from happening. as it is my duty to human life to do so.  I decided that if I truly believed this then the fossil fuels companies MUST be stopped, the frackers needed to be stopped, all of them coal companies, all needed to be stopped. Gas producers, need to be stopped.... by any means necessary, after all the planet needs to be saved!

 

BUT before I launch into this campaign of burning bombing shooting etc, this WAR, I decided I should check further into this to make sure that I have my facts straight. So I did.

 

And what I found was that I was being lied to in the magnitude of what the issues were. In many cases completely lied to. And the deeper I searched the deeper I found a larger web of connected lies. All th emails hitting my box looking for funds - pushing lies. Alarming me every day - Lies. ALL LIES

 

And then after voting for Obama twice folks..... I became a conservative, at over 50 years of age.. Yeah, and then later a supporter of Donald J Trump. 

 

I will never succumb to this pack of lies ever again. This is a hostile attack on everything normal  by leftist thugs is all  it is. They wish to force their remaking of the world up us. And I aint having any of it.

 

So if you find yourself as a true believer - then behave like one. Go do what you have to do because their are only a few years left, and don't even have kids, and take to the forest with your weapons and save the earth. But be sure you know for sure who you are listening to, and if you are a believer - a "TRUE BELIEVER" and are not open to review of your own thought processes you are following a man made religion. Examine yourself before throwing all that Revolution on us. 

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I'm a retired research scientist, and I'll stop screaming when posters on TV show even a minuscule understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which, loosely translated, says there are no free lunches.

As for polluting the minds of children, how about the millions that receive religious instruction daily?

Electricity derived from solar and wind power is the fuel of the future. Admittedly not for aircraft, but everything else.

The US has met its goals? Trump appoints a fossil fuel executive as Secretary of the EPA. Yeah right.

This has nothing to do with Religions man. Do you see what I mean, that is bleedover. Your fight is with far more then climate isn't it? You are wrong about solar and wind. There is not enough and wind comes with its own issues as - YOU KNOW - if you are a research scientist who worked in that field. Those goals met by the USA have nothing to do with Trump - Once again, I ask that you examine yourself and your motives. If you have issues with conservatives in general say so . IF you have issues with Donald Trump say so, if you are opposed to religious people, and don't like churches, those are your problems. AND I DO MEAN THOSE ARE YOUR PROBLEMS. but those issues have nothing to do with the science. You are being programmed by you email inbox and what you watch.  That is why I walked to the right. I began to notice that it was one big umbrella of issues that one must BELIEVE. A basket of MUST BELIEVE. and MUST give money to. 

 

If you believe there is a Revolution that needs to happen right now to save the World then you owe it to yourself to save it, otherwise you are nothing but a weak willed individual afraid to act. I ask that before you act you check your beliefs. Thoroughly.

 

Communists they believe. They decide they want to re-educate everyone else - get religion out of their heads, get ideas that are not in agreement with the program OUT OF THEIR HEADS, they have zero tolerance for dissent because dissent is against their program of saving the world.

 

SO I ask you DO YOU have a program for saving the world? Do you?