The climate crusaders say coal is dying! LOL!!

[SSDD]

See the box on their status as threatened by global warming.

A fallacy as their numbers jumped from just over 5,000 to well over 29,000 in the last 25 years... This is why they are not considered an endangered species any more. The warmth has allowed them to thrive.

How hard must one have to work in order to be as uninformed as these people are?

 

[Mousterian]

Wry Catcher....I can't help but notice that you seem to be avoiding my post asking you for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? You talk as if you have seen evidence that supports the claims of man made climate change over natural variability. One would expect that you would gladly slap me down with such evidence if you had seen it.

The fact is, that no such evidence exists, and you certainly won't be posting it. You will either avoid answering, or give some excuse as to why you can't be bothered like all other warmers who are faced with the fact that their position is one of belief...not evidence.

Antarctica's ice melt 'has accelerated'
Antarctica losing three TRILLION tons of ice in the last 25 years, at an ever-accelerating rate, probably doesn't qualify as 'evidence', according to your tragically blinkered view.
But that's how it goes...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Where do you get you "information"? Clearly you've never learned to debate civilly.

You can't figure out this sentence I wrote???

"Do even realize that the INTERGLACIAL period is better for them than Glaciation period?"

Meanwhile Polar Bears get most of their fat for the year in just a few months.

Buffet time for polar bears – spring/early summer is for eating baby seals

"Spring is the busiest and most important season for polar bears: it is the most important feeding period and it is also when mating occurs. The fat that polar bears put on during the spring and early summer is critical for their survival over the rest of the year and for females, determines whether they can successfully produce cubs the following year."

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial,interglaciation) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periodswithin an ice age. The current Holocene interglacialbegan at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.

And,

The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago.

Basic Facts About Polar Bears

See the box on their status as threatened by global warming.

Polar Bears have been considered a THREATENGED species for many years, while the Population greatly increased, DESPITE the significant reduction of summer ice, from YOUR LINK:

"Population
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) estimates that there are between 20,000-25,000 polar bears in the world."

That is the HIGHEST it has ever been

They are Bsing you too easily.

Your interglacial period lecture is hilarious since you STILL don't seem to understand that it is better than living in a glaciation period.

Who is the BSer? Koch Industries or the 98% of scientists around the world?

And there it is...

You have no desire to even be rational or to use commonsense. You have found your boogie man and no amount of real science will sway your from the fantasy.

Yup, he is another warmist dupe who is into something that is way over his head. Notice how he COMPLETELY ignores SSDD's charts on the Polar region. Notice he lacks critical thinking skills on the subject, he didn't even noticed how he destroyed his own Polar Bear argument!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wry Catcher....I can't help but notice that you seem to be avoiding my post asking you for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? You talk as if you have seen evidence that supports the claims of man made climate change over natural variability. One would expect that you would gladly slap me down with such evidence if you had seen it.

The fact is, that no such evidence exists, and you certainly won't be posting it. You will either avoid answering, or give some excuse as to why you can't be bothered like all other warmers who are faced with the fact that their position is one of belief...not evidence.

Antarctica's ice melt 'has accelerated'
Antarctica losing three TRILLION tons of ice in the last 25 years, at an ever-accelerating rate, probably doesn't qualify as 'evidence', according to your tragically blinkered view.
But that's how it goes...

Yawn..... Zzzzz. You didn't notice what they leave out in the article. Not only that it goes in CYCLES over time of increasing then decreasing.

Here is one from NASA saying there is a small increase:

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wry Catcher....I can't help but notice that you seem to be avoiding my post asking you for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? You talk as if you have seen evidence that supports the claims of man made climate change over natural variability. One would expect that you would gladly slap me down with such evidence if you had seen it.

The fact is, that no such evidence exists, and you certainly won't be posting it. You will either avoid answering, or give some excuse as to why you can't be bothered like all other warmers who are faced with the fact that their position is one of belief...not evidence.

Antarctica's ice melt 'has accelerated'
Antarctica losing three TRILLION tons of ice in the last 25 years, at an ever-accelerating rate, probably doesn't qualify as 'evidence', according to your tragically blinkered view.
But that's how it goes...

The BBC Opinion piece is lacking facts to back up their narrative. Funny how that works.. they cited multiple satellites which have all failed the on ground verification process. One must be careful when reading these hype articles. Check your facts before making assumptions.

 

[SSDD]

Wry Catcher....I can't help but notice that you seem to be avoiding my post asking you for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? You talk as if you have seen evidence that supports the claims of man made climate change over natural variability. One would expect that you would gladly slap me down with such evidence if you had seen it.

The fact is, that no such evidence exists, and you certainly won't be posting it. You will either avoid answering, or give some excuse as to why you can't be bothered like all other warmers who are faced with the fact that their position is one of belief...not evidence.

Antarctica's ice melt 'has accelerated'
Antarctica losing three TRILLION tons of ice in the last 25 years, at an ever-accelerating rate, probably doesn't qualify as 'evidence', according to your tragically blinkered view.
But that's how it goes...

That may be evidence that the Antarctic is losing ice, but it certainly isn't evidence that we are causing it. Here, a gold standard Antarctic temperature reconstruction from the Vostok ice cores. As you can see, the present is considerably cooler than it has been for a great deal of the past 10,000 years. The ice has certainly been far lower during those periods where the temperatures were warmer than the present.

The ice loss we have seen is small compared to what natural variability has shown us in just the past 10,000 years. evidence of change is not evidence of the cause of the change. If you want to show evidence that man is causing the change rather than simple natural variability, you should look for something that looks different from natural variability.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wry Catcher....I can't help but notice that you seem to be avoiding my post asking you for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? You talk as if you have seen evidence that supports the claims of man made climate change over natural variability. One would expect that you would gladly slap me down with such evidence if you had seen it.

The fact is, that no such evidence exists, and you certainly won't be posting it. You will either avoid answering, or give some excuse as to why you can't be bothered like all other warmers who are faced with the fact that their position is one of belief...not evidence.

Antarctica's ice melt 'has accelerated'
Antarctica losing three TRILLION tons of ice in the last 25 years, at an ever-accelerating rate, probably doesn't qualify as 'evidence', according to your tragically blinkered view.
But that's how it goes...

Yawn..... Zzzzz. You didn't notice what they leave out in the article. Not only that it goes in CYCLES over time of increasing then decreasing.

Here is one from NASA saying there is a small increase:

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

The BBC is known for cherry picking facts which only fit their narrative...

 

[Mousterian]

Not unlike your charts, that pull up 100 years short of today...

 

[SSDD]

Not unlike your charts, that pull up 100 years short of today...

You can't read a chart? Don't guess you noticed that 110 years ago was not where the chart starts. If you go out on google, I am sure you can find a site to help you learn to read a simple chart.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not unlike your charts, that pull up 100 years short of today...

You can't read a chart? Don't guess you noticed that 110 years ago was not where the chart starts. If you go out on google, I am sure you can find a site to help you learn to read a simple chart.

Notice that he ignores 99% of the Holocene time frame.....

 

[SSDD]

Not unlike your charts, that pull up 100 years short of today...

You can't read a chart? Don't guess you noticed that 110 years ago was not where the chart starts. If you go out on google, I am sure you can find a site to help you learn to read a simple chart.

Notice that he ignores 99% of the Holocene time frame.....

Typical....they believe your whole argument is invalid if you misuse a semicolon or misspell a word.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. Do deniers ever have any doubts that the Climate Change & Ocean Warming have nothing to do with human actions


If not, they have rejected a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Dang....

Q. Do deniers ever have any doubts that the Climate Change & Ocean Warming have nothing to do with human actions


If not, they have rejected a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Dang s0n... you are pulling the famous stunt that progressives are known for: completely changing the topic in midstream. On this one that's particularly fascinating because it's not even in the ballpark. You people don't even try hard anymore.

You are posing a question that is completely immaterial to the discussion.

Let me connect the dots for you.

How and what energy is produced will never ever have anything to do with climate change. In the real world energy production has to do with one thing and one thing only: costs. Costs, of course never matter to the progressive. It's as if they don't even exist. But in the real world costs are everything as we clearly see in energy production over the last 25 years and we'll see for the next century. Even the Obama Energy Information Agency report from just over a year ago agrees . Munch....munch!!

As I said in my last post perhaps I am ignorant but I am clearly winning!

You're winning? What makes you think so?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

Do you even have a clue why that happened? Or are you spouting off about something you have no idea on?

 

[SSDD]

You're winning? What makes you think so?

The fact that you were asked to produce a single piece of observed, measured data which supported the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...and you can't do it certainly means that you aren't winning....and since you aren't....we must be. Don't worry though....I have been asking for that single piece of observed measured data supporting AGW over natural variability for over 2 decades now...no one has produced it because no such data exists.

By the way...don't think that no one has noticed that you dodged the request...they did,

 

[skookerasbil]

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

Oh Gawd....s0n.....sell that bike!

Without the coal being burned what do you think happens to people during the winter? Yes dummy.... they freeze like a fucking popsicle.

Duh

It is fascinating that the progressive never understands necessary trade-offs in life!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

Oh Gawd....s0n.....sell that bike!

Without the coal being burned what do you think happens to people during the winter? Yes dummy.... they freeze like a fucking popsicle.

Duh

It is fascinating that the progressive never understands necessary trade-offs in life!!

LOL, such hyperbole, the native American's lived for centuries without coal in Winter climates as harsh as Minn. and other Midwestern States.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

Do you even have a clue why that happened? Or are you spouting off about something you have no idea on?

Why, yes, I know what happened. London banned the installation of coal burning furnaces within the city center, and then converted the furnaces that were already there to oil, with the result that it never happened again.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

Oh Gawd....s0n.....sell that bike!

Without the coal being burned what do you think happens to people during the winter? Yes dummy.... they freeze like a fucking popsicle.

Duh

It is fascinating that the progressive never understands necessary trade-offs in life!!

LOL, such hyperbole, the native American's lived for centuries without coal in Winter climates as harsh as Minn. and other Midwestern States.

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

Oh Gawd....s0n.....sell that bike!

Without the coal being burned what do you think happens to people during the winter? Yes dummy.... they freeze like a fucking popsicle.

Duh

It is fascinating that the progressive never understands necessary trade-offs in life!!

LOL, such hyperbole, the native American's lived for centuries without coal in Winter climates as harsh as Minn. and other Midwestern States.

They didn't live very long either...….., not often past age

Let's all cheer for the coal industry!!!

The Great Smog of 1952

Up to 12,000 killed in London by coal polution/smog combination

Oh Gawd....s0n.....sell that bike!

Without the coal being burned what do you think happens to people during the winter? Yes dummy.... they freeze like a fucking popsicle.

Duh

It is fascinating that the progressive never understands necessary trade-offs in life!!

LOL, such hyperbole, the native American's lived for centuries without coal in Winter climates as harsh as Minn. and other Midwestern States.

Gosh you want your face to break up early and be lucky to reach age 60?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Gawad!

Do even realize that the INTERGLACIAL period is better for them than Glaciation period?

Polar Bears are CURRENTLY enjoying a large population growth of several decades.

Low summer sea ice levels has little impact on Polar Bear dietary habits.

You are so clueless.

Where do you get you "information"? Clearly you've never learned to debate civilly.

You can't figure out this sentence I wrote???

"Do even realize that the INTERGLACIAL period is better for them than Glaciation period?"

Meanwhile Polar Bears get most of their fat for the year in just a few months.

Buffet time for polar bears – spring/early summer is for eating baby seals

"Spring is the busiest and most important season for polar bears: it is the most important feeding period and it is also when mating occurs. The fat that polar bears put on during the spring and early summer is critical for their survival over the rest of the year and for females, determines whether they can successfully produce cubs the following year."

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial,interglaciation) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periodswithin an ice age. The current Holocene interglacialbegan at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.

And,

The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago.

Basic Facts About Polar Bears

See the box on their status as threatened by global warming.

Polar Bears have been considered a THREATENGED species for many years, while the Population greatly increased, DESPITE the significant reduction of summer ice, from YOUR LINK:

"Population
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) estimates that there are between 20,000-25,000 polar bears in the world."

That is the HIGHEST it has ever been

They are Bsing you too easily.

Your interglacial period lecture is hilarious since you STILL don't seem to understand that it is better than living in a glaciation period.

Who is the BSer? Koch Industries or the 98% of scientists around the world?

Then you have no counterpoint left to make, thus your sudden deflection to B.S. levels.

Cheers.