Glacier Bay Alaska Proves Climate Change Is Real

[Crick]

Wow, you stupid fuck!

The only nations getting fleeced by climate change are a few Western nations, and many of those are balking at the requirements; meanwhile, the heaviest carbon polluters, India and China, are giving you the bird while they fuck your favorite politicians in the ass.

You are a liar, plain and simple.

Suppose you think that the quality of life has lifted billions out of poverty and death just from the availability of cheap energy. In that case, you are not only criminal but insanely so.

Just eliminate fossil fuels and watch the whole world burn the dead bodies of starvation.

No one has ever suggested that fossil fuels did not provide power to the world. But there was a cost to that and now we have to pay. We have already replaced over 2,000 GW of fossil fuel energy and 26 fucking million cars with non-emitting technology and no one is burning the dead to keep warm, are they. It's funny that you fuckers like to call me an alarmist when it's YOU that are constantly posting 100%, AAAA, panic-stricken bullshit like this every day.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 881038

Why didn't you post the comment to which I was responding? Is it because you're such a strong advocate for truth and honesty? It looked like this:

when the hysteria of an ice age was coming in the 70s, i learned how god damned ignorant so many people are......if one is so concerned about this...they owe it to themselves, friends, family and god, to take their own life for the cause

asshole.

 

[BackAgain]

Go fuck yourself. Mainstream science never held an ice age was imminent. Given that a democracy requires an informed citizenry, you're blowing it.

Mainstream science never held an ice age was imminent.

Are you sure about that?

I think what you’re denying is that the claim was ever supported by the unicorn of “consensus.”

Maybe true.

But serious scientists sure as did make the claim. And they weren’t crazy outsider loons. They were genuine mainstream climate scientists.

 

[Crick]

Are you sure about that?

I think what you’re denying is that the claim was ever supported by the unicorn of “consensus.”

Maybe true.

But serious scientists sure as did make the claim. And they weren’t crazy outsider loons. They were genuine mainstream climate scientists.

Do you have some names? Some links?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Why didn't you post the comment to which I was responding? Is it because you're such a strong advocate for truth and honesty? It looked like this:



asshole.

i really appreciate that..................they are finding alarming amounts of polio in nyc waste water...get your god damned head in order and quit this stupid god damned fucking nonsense

 

[Crick]

i really appreciate that..................they are finding alarming amounts of polio in nyc waste water...get your god damned head in order and quit this stupid god damned fucking nonsense

I repeat, go fuck yourself. You threatened my family. I don't care for such things.

 

[elektra]

No one has ever suggested that fossil fuels did not provide power to the world. But there was a cost to that and now we have to pay. We have already replaced over 2,000 GW of fossil fuel energy and 26 fucking million cars with non-emitting technology and no one is burning the dead to keep warm, are they.

200,000 tons of CO2 is emitted daily by wind and solar. And it was natural gas that replaced the coal plants, not wind and solar

 

[BackAgain]

Do you have some names? Some links?

Yes. Why do you “ask?”

Do you mean this is “news” to you which you hadn’t heard and read before?

 

[Crick]

Yes. Why do you “ask?”

Do you mean this is “news” to you which you hadn’t heard and read before?

As I said earlier today, the only scientist's name I have ever seen in "new ice age" articles was the ecologist Paul Ehrlich. If you have someone else, let's hear about it. Is there some reason you can't name names and post links?

 

[BackAgain]

As I said earlier today, the only scientist's name I have ever seen in "new ice age" articles was the ecologist Paul Ehrlich. If you have someone else, let's hear about it. Is there some reason you can't name names and post links?

You ask trite questions.

I don’t believe for one second that you can only think of one.

Consider:

climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.

See: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was

Also, see:
The Ice Age that never happened - Scienceline (which also named Reid Bryson and James Haynes).

So, say again: it may well be that it never reached a “consensus.” So what? “Consensus” is unscientific claptrap anyway.

 

[Crick]

You ask trite questions.

I don’t believe for one second that you can only think of one.

Too bad. And that's an interesting piece but you still haven't named anyone.

Consider:

See: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was

Also, see:
The Ice Age that never happened - Scienceline (which also named Reid Bryson and James Haynes).

So, say again: it may well be that it never reached a “consensus.” So what? “Consensus” is unscientific claptrap anyway.

So is your point that there were a very small minority of scientists who thought the world was still cooling? The claim, however, was that scientists had predicted an imminent ice age. Not to be nit-picky but average temperatures continuing to cool is not an imminent ice age.

 

[fncceo]

Why didn't you post the comment to which I was responding?

"...if one is so concerned about this...they owe it to themselves, friends, family and god, to take their own life for the cause"

I happen to agree with that. If you want to portray yourself as savior of mankind protecting us all from the imminent threat that is ourselves, it is very hypocritical and cowardly to insist that others make sacrifices to make you the hero.

Real heroism and altruism starts, and ends, with you giving up those things that are dearest to you to save others ... not insisting that others give up their lives to save yours.

 

[BackAgain]

Too bad. And that's an interesting piece but you still haven't named anyone.

Yes. Did. Go re read.

So is your point that there were a very small minority of scientists who thought the world was still cooling? The claim, however, was that scientists had predicted an imminent ice age. Not to be nit-picky but average temperatures continuing to cool is not an imminent ice age.

Zzz

I enjoy your quibbles.

But the hard fact remains. Consensus or not, some climate scientists maintained that an ice age was coming.

Man didn’t agree. That’s fine. Science still isn’t governed by “consensus.” And yes, even scientists can be wrong.

 

[Crick]

Yes. Did. Go re read.

Zzz

I enjoy your quibbles.

But the hard fact remains. Consensus or not, some climate scientists maintained that an ice age was coming.

Man didn’t agree. That’s fine. Science still isn’t governed by “consensus.” And yes, even scientists can be wrong.

Consensus is how one determines what is accepted science and what is not. Aside from that point, I accept your findings.

 

[BackAgain]

Consensus is how one determines what is accepted science and what is not. Aside from that point, I accept your findings.

What is accepted depends much more on repeated ability to perform the testing and come to the predicted results.

Consensus is not part of scientific theory.

Your claim is similar to believing that if a majority of Americans currently accepted the claim that the Axis powers won world war 2, then Hitler prevailed.

in reality, of course, history isn’t a validly written by majority rule. And neither is science.

 

[fncceo]

Consensus is how one determines what is accepted science and what is not

No, reproducible experimentation and accurate prediction is how science determines what is accepted.

 

[abu afak]

What is accepted depends much more on repeated ability to perform the testing and come to the predicted results.

Consensus is not part of scientific theory.

Your claim is similar to believing that if a majority of Americans currently accepted the claim that the Axis powers won world war 2, then Hitler prevailed.

in reality, of course, history isn’t a validly written by majority rule. And neither is science.

Yes it is.
Consensus is the RESULT of science practiced/reproduced/agreed upon by the Huge Majority of Scientists.
A Scientific Theory is the result of Agreed upon/tested Hypotheses over time, not a mere guess.
Evolution was a hypothesis until it became accepted enough over time (observation, etc) to become a Scientific Theory.
`

 

[BackAgain]

Yes it is.
Consensus is the RESULT of science practiced/reproduced/agreed upon by the Huge Majority of Scientists.
A Scientific Theory is the result of Agreed upon/tested Hypotheses over time, not a mere guess.
`

Nope. Look up “scientific method.”

You may return to the discussion when you finish writing a complete essay on how “consensus” has fuck all to do with that.

Until then, apu dumfuk, you remain an imbecile.

 

[dudmuck]

Yes. Did. Go re read.

Zzz

I enjoy your quibbles.

But the hard fact remains. Consensus or not, some climate scientists maintained that an ice age was coming.

Man didn’t agree. That’s fine. Science still isn’t governed by “consensus.” And yes, even scientists can be wrong.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen well above the 180-280 ppm range typical of recent glacial-interglacial cycles. The current level, getting on for 420 ppm, is more typical of the mid-Pliocene. That was a geological epoch that happened around a million years before the start of the Quaternary. Mid-Pliocene ice-sheets were much smaller than those of the present day. Rather than being due another glaciation, we can expect a continued transition towards mid-Pliocene conditions.

 

[BackAgain]

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen well above the 180-280 ppm range typical of recent glacial-interglacial cycles. The current level, getting on for 420 ppm, is more typical of the mid-Pliocene. That was a geological epoch that happened around a million years before the start of the Quaternary. Mid-Pliocene ice-sheets were much smaller than those of the present day. Rather than being due another glaciation, we can expect a continued transition towards mid-Pliocene conditions.

Come on. Get it off your chest.

It was those fuckin’ pilocene SUVs that did it.