2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[Saigon]

no insights, no thought

And you can link to where you have ever posted anything even vaguely resembling either of those, can you?

Because I have never seen you post anything other than mindless spam.

 

[IanC]

Frank and skooks mostly care about the political side of the climate wars. they understand and applaud the ground swell of public opinion that most of the money being put into ameliorating 'climate change' is just being pissed away. they are not all that interested in the science except to see how it is falling apart for the AGW alarmists.

I dont particularly care about the politics except where the dysfunctional ethics of the AGW alarmists shoot themselves in the foot.

and what of the 'useful idiots' that prosthelytize for AGW? they accept whatever is told to them, and go out and preach it. first, the Antarctic is warming up and the ice will cause 70 meters of sea level rise. then the Antarctic isnt warming up but the peninsula is and the ice melt will still cause meters of SLR. then the Antarctic is being protected by the Ozone Hole caused by UV from the sun (but werent we told that the sun cannot impact the climate?). every new failure of AGW theory is met with a new 'explanation' and the faithful preach on, never wavering in the least because they are certain that there side is right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, I really thought you were a bit more well read than that, Ian. However, since you wish to repeat the wingnut nonsense, you are revealing that you have not read what the scientists have stated at all. All you have apparently read is what the wingnuts state the scientists said.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

no insights, no thought

And you can link to where you have ever posted anything even vaguely resembling either of those, can you?

Because I have never seen you post anything other than mindless spam.

Show me how decreasing CO2 will stop climate change

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Partly...

What is it deniers fail to hear?

Researchers suspect that loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused partly by global warming and partly by changing atmospheric pressure and wind patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, which also help to warm Arctic temperatures. Changes in air pressure and wind patterns may likewise be a result of greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

“The warming we see is another indication that climate is now changing, and in ways that may not have been experienced in several million years,” says David Rind, a senior researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Dwindling Arctic Ice : Feature Articles

and


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[IanC]

Well now, I really thought you were a bit more well read than that, Ian. However, since you wish to repeat the wingnut nonsense, you are revealing that you have not read what the scientists have stated at all. All you have apparently read is what the wingnuts state the scientists said.

hahahaha. I believe my simplifications are more accurate than your misrepresentations of the skeptical case.

 

[Saigon]

Frank and skooks mostly care about the political side of the climate wars. they understand and applaud the ground swell of public opinion that most of the money being put into ameliorating 'climate change' is just being pissed away. they are not all that interested in the science except to see how it is falling apart for the AGW alarmists.

Actually, no, they just post spam.

You'd be far better off abandoning these half-wits rather than defending them, you know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult is still a cult

 

[IanC]

Frank and skooks mostly care about the political side of the climate wars. they understand and applaud the ground swell of public opinion that most of the money being put into ameliorating 'climate change' is just being pissed away. they are not all that interested in the science except to see how it is falling apart for the AGW alarmists.

Actually, no, they just post spam.

You'd be far better off abandoning these half-wits rather than defending them, you know.

they have a point of view, the same as you do. I dont have to agree with everything or anything they say to be willing to acknowledge that. I would agree with some of the things you say if you would be willing to admit to the large uncertainties that are inherent in them. but you dont have doubts do you? hahahaha

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

The level of doubt depends on the topic.

As I've said before, I think there is a lack of scientific proof about some aspects of climate change (i.e. the impact of solar activity, ocean pH) but very little doubt about most other aspects.

 

[IanC]

some warming since the little ice age, and increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels. what else do you consider beyond doubt? glaciers were melting long before we started spewing large amounts of CO2. increased CO2 doesnt seem to be affecting temps like predicted, does it?

go ahead, tell me what 'convinced you'. your own words and dont bother with links unless it is something new and unusual.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Not surprisingly, I can't explain what convinced me about climate change in 2 or 3 sentences. I didn't have any great interest or feelings about climate change for a couple of years from when I first heard about it. It took a couple of years of reading different articles, and perhaps more importantly, talking to people in countries like Chile, Australia, Spain, Bangladesh and Holland.

In so many countries everyone can see the impacts of climate change for themselves, and research shows that in those countries often some 90% of people believe human activity is to blame. That is a coincidence.

As for the CO2 element - I've never seen another credible theory presented. Saying 'Oh, the climate has always changed' hardly explains why glaciers in the Andes have declined by half since 1970.

As Old Rocks pointed out the other day, of the half dozen most active sceptics here, almost all of them hold quite extreme right wing attitudes, and I don't find that very convincing either. (I'm not incuding you in this, btw).

 

[westwall]

Ian C -

Not surprisingly, I can't explain what convinced me about climate change in 2 or 3 sentences. I didn't have any great interest or feelings about climate change for a couple of years from when I first heard about it. It took a couple of years of reading different articles, and perhaps more importantly, talking to people in countries like Chile, Australia, Spain, Bangladesh and Holland.

In so many countries everyone can see the impacts of climate change for themselves, and research shows that in those countries often some 90% of people believe human activity is to blame. That is a coincidence.

As for the CO2 element - I've never seen another credible theory presented. Saying 'Oh, the climate has always changed' hardly explains why glaciers in the Andes have declined by half since 1970.

As Old Rocks pointed out the other day, of the half dozen most active sceptics here, almost all of them hold quite extreme right wing attitudes, and I don't find that very convincing either. (I'm not incuding you in this, btw).

Explain then, how they shrank much further in the period between 1870 and 1900. Anecdotal evidence is cute, but it's not science. Over 100 peer reviewed papers show the temperature was greater during the MWP than the current day and was global in nature.

Why do you ignore hard scientific evidence?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

The chart is there on the front page, and explains things fairly clearly, I think.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How will decreasing CO2 prevent climate change? Is there any experimental evidence?

Why does the AGWCult ignore the Vostock Ice Core data set showing that CO2 is incidental to temperature?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.

A23A

C24A

What sort of proof do you think is there rocks? Where is the hard evidence. Simply give me the time stamp where you believe hard proof is presented. I have watched both videos and see nothing there that rises to the level of proof.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.

A23A

C24A

Exactly that.

And this is also the same tactic used in Holocaust denial; all history is biased. All history is recorded by Jews. All evidence is faked by Jews. Thus there can be no proof of a Holocaust.

While deniers might find this kind of thinking comforting, it is the logic of a child, and is hardly likely to gain adherents amongst people who are open minded and literate.

Obviously rocks can't point to any part of either of those videos that represents proof of anything more than is gullibility. Can you? I watched them and saw nothing there that could possibly be construed as proof of anything.

 

[ima]

Why does anyone care that the earth is getting warmer? Like, so fucking what? So there'll be less snow and less cold areas of the world. So why does that matter so much? People just like to get freaked out? Need a crisis in their lives?

 

[SSDD]

Why does anyone care that the earth is getting warmer? Like, so fucking what? So there'll be less snow and less cold areas of the world. So why does that matter so much? People just like to get freaked out? Need a crisis in their lives?

Because climate change is a vast source of money. It is a means of income redistribution untill such time as the wheels completely fall off the wagon and the crappy science is exposed....at which time, some other cause will be forthcoming to continue the agenda of income redistribution.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

You know, if I thought you believed half of the nonsense you post, I'd be worried for you.

But I don't.

I have already explained to you a couple of times that the overwhelming majority of science conducted on climate science is not tagged to specific units of funding. Universities in most of the developed world are bulk funded - they do not apply for funding for specific projects.

Your "theory" is simply a nonsense, and I think we can be fairly sure you know that too.