Global Climate Change Science News

[Tero]

Oh but it's just politics. My Finnish friend even denies the greenhouse effect. This is because the green party lets in refugees into Finland. And Finns don't give them any jobs because...foreigners. And they become parasites for taxpayers.

Therefore according to him there is no warming. Sometimes he "wishes" for warming. Because the summers are too cool.

[Tero]

Also, because there is no global warming, the Finns have no need to let in Syrians.

Plus, global warming has the EU dictating environmental policy to Finland so best get out of EU.

[Galaxian]

We know who'll find this interesting, eh? And who won't!
Gifford is currently tenured at the University of Victoria...

This is why they're deniers:
The science that goes deep into the anti-climate-change brain
Over the past two decades, the phenomenon of climate denial has come into focus almost as much as climate change itself. We've now reached the point where the Republican Party is virtually the only conservative party in the world that's still playing ostrich when it comes to climate change. But is denialism alone enough to explain the psychological resistance to saving the planet?
Canadian psychologist Robert Gifford,....
Salon spoke with Gifford to explore this broader landscape. The transcript has been edited for clarity and space....
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/this_i ... nge_brain/

Original paper: Gifford: Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, Brian. You're reduced to quoting from a shrink?! Even Sigmund Fraud was smarter...

But seriously, you lot have nothing to worry about, since their many predictions of no more snow after several years ago & no more arctic ice, etc have all come true, eh? So you only need to refer to the latest videos to show zero snow cover. Some horror announcement clips from 2' 45" on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p88qvNmXX4

[pErvinalia]

Who made predictions that as of now we would see no snow and no arctic ice? Youtube videos don't count as evidence.

[JimC]

The steadily shrinking percentage of Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels and the world-wide retreat of glaciers are facts.

[Tyrannical]

The steadily shrinking percentage of Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels and the world-wide retreat of glaciers are facts.

So..... physics question.

How inland and how quick to make a killing on the Australian real-estate market?

[Brian Peacock]

We know who'll find this interesting, eh? And who won't!
Gifford is currently tenured at the University of Victoria...

This is why they're deniers:
The science that goes deep into the anti-climate-change brain
Over the past two decades, the phenomenon of climate denial has come into focus almost as much as climate change itself. We've now reached the point where the Republican Party is virtually the only conservative party in the world that's still playing ostrich when it comes to climate change. But is denialism alone enough to explain the psychological resistance to saving the planet?
Canadian psychologist Robert Gifford,....
Salon spoke with Gifford to explore this broader landscape. The transcript has been edited for clarity and space....
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/this_i ... nge_brain/

Original paper: Gifford: Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, Brian. You're reduced to quoting from a shrink?! Even Sigmund Fraud was smarter...

With the empirical justification for climate and environmental denialism so thoroughly undermined then one naturally looks to other reasons why deniers keep their faith in spite of the evidence. If you'd read the paper you'd be aware of the hard science backing up Dr Gifford's postulates. Feel free to dispute that science in scientific terms anytime you like.

But seriously, you lot have nothing to worry about, since their many predictions of no more snow after several years ago & no more arctic ice, etc have all come true, eh?

Citation required. What was said, exactly, by whom, when, and in what context. These vague 'they said this' and 'they said that' are indistinguishable from fallacious strawmen.

So you only need to refer to the latest videos to show zero snow cover. Some horror announcement clips from 2' 45" on:
[snip vid]

It is not beyond the wit or resources of most people to understand a rational argument or to consider the sources which might underpin it - even if one is not a scientists. How about you make those arguments instead of outsourcing your opinions to the moving image eh? At least quote your sources and/or reference the time in the video which you think is pertinent to your point.

BTW: Still waiting for that 'honest' reply to my earlier posts here and here.

[Galaxian]

We know who'll find this interesting, eh? And who won't!
Gifford is currently tenured at the University of Victoria...

This is why they're deniers:
The science that goes deep into the anti-climate-change brain
Over the past two decades, the phenomenon of climate denial has come into focus almost as much as climate change itself. We've now reached the point where the Republican Party is virtually the only conservative party in the world that's still playing ostrich when it comes to climate change. But is denialism alone enough to explain the psychological resistance to saving the planet?
Canadian psychologist Robert Gifford,....
Salon spoke with Gifford to explore this broader landscape. The transcript has been edited for clarity and space....
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/this_i ... nge_brain/

Original paper: Gifford: Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, Brian. You're reduced to quoting from a shrink?! Even Sigmund Fraud was smarter...

With the empirical justification for climate and environmental denialism[superstitious hysteria (now corrected)] so thoroughly undermined then one naturally looks to other reasons why deniers keep their faith in spite of the evidence. If you'd read the paper you'd be aware of the hard science backing up Dr Gifford's postulates. Feel free to dispute that science in scientific terms anytime you like.

But seriously, you lot have nothing to worry about, since their many predictions of no more snow after several years ago & no more arctic ice, etc have all come true, eh?

Citation required. What was said, exactly, by whom, when, and in what context. These vague 'they said this' and 'they said that' are indistinguishable from fallacious strawmen.

Talk about strawmen! Every one of my posts has had citations embedded in the videos posted. If you can't be bothered to look at the videos & note the many citations, that is not my fault or the video maker's fault. There's no law that says factual presentations must be printed on dusty old tomes and read for a month before a response may be made.

Take for example my response to L'Emmerdeur, here, viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9036&start=2085#p1846846 where I pointed out the blunder in his post, where he states:
"In addition, the Maunder Minimum occurred .....before the onset of the Maunder Minimum." He STILL could not understand or admit where he had stuffed up! So how can he or you understand a formal presentation in a scientific journal. And if you did, I doubt that you would admit (as I have done frequently in the past) to your mistake. Remember, I used to be a strong anthropogenic global warming advocate, until Galaxian put me right & directed me to the factual data & evidence to show it was all a hoax.

So you only need to refer to the latest videos to show zero snow cover. Some horror announcement clips from 2' 45" on:
[snip vid]

It is not beyond the wit or resources of most people to understand a rational argument or to consider the sources which might underpin it - even if one is not a scientists. How about you make those arguments instead of outsourcing your opinions to the moving image eh? At least quote your sources and/or reference the time in the video which you think is pertinent to your point.
BTW: Still waiting for that 'honest' reply to my earlier posts here and here.

TOTALLY wrong! It IS "beyond the wit or resources of most people to understand a rational argument or to consider the sources which might underpin it" The evidence is all around you. How else do you explain wars & religion & ongoing corruption, etc, etc. All widespread for thousands of years? And as noted above, all my posts have frequent citations & links... if you bothered to actually look at them.

[Brian Peacock]

You know exactly what I meant, and you do both your own and my intelligence a disservice by pretending otherwise. It's up to you to support your contentions when directly asked to in honest discourse. Attempting to argue by proxy and linking to hours of conspiracy and science denialsim opinion videos--when you could easily communicate your own thoughts in your own words--acts as neither as explanation or justification for your statements and remarks. In the meantime I shall continue to aspire towards an honest discourse with you and for you to argue your own case and qualify your own assertions in good faith - though I am sure by now that this is a foolhardy aspiration on my part.

[Galaxian]

The steadily shrinking percentage of Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels and the world-wide retreat of glaciers are facts.

Are they now? You didn't notice the predictions of the end of Arctic sea ice i my previous posts? All will citations. You don't know that the rising sea leavels have been ongoing since the end of the last Ice Age? And that the rise is smaller than they claim. You did not notice that glaciers have always advanced & retreated?
Putting your devotion in Greta Thunberg & corrupt politicians such as Al Gore is a mistake. Think for yourself!
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/env ... imate-lies
"it is more likely that sea levels will decline, not rise, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University. A new solar-driven cooling period is not far off, he said. But when Mörner tried to warn the UN IPCC that it was publishing false information that would inevitably be discredited, they simply ignored him. And so, dismayed, he resigned in disgust and decided to blow the whistle.
Asked if coastal cities such as Miami would be flooding due to sea-level rise caused by alleged man-made global warming, Mörner was unequivocal: “Absolutely not.” “There is no rapid sea-level rise going on today, and there will not be,” he said, citing observable data. “On the contrary, if anything happens, the sea will go down a little.” The widely respected scientist, who has been tracking sea levels in various parts of the globe for some 50 years, blasted those who use incorrect “correction factors” in their data to make it appear that seas are rising worldwide. That is just wrong, he said."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

[pErvinalia]

Remember, I used to be a strong anthropogenic global warming advocate, until Galaxian put me right & directed me to the factual data & evidence to show it was all a hoax.

So do we add "split personality" to the list of your afflictions?

[Brian Peacock]

He's turned full Thunderf00t now.

[Galaxian]

The steadily shrinking percentage of Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels and the world-wide retreat of glaciers are facts.

So..... physics question.
How inland and how quick to make a killing on the Australian real-estate market?

That's a good question, and it depends on how much money can be made, and how many new laws & taxes can be introduced by our lords & masters.

@JimC: For sea level rises go to Tim Ball's lecture (my second videos a few pages ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE ) & start at 6 minutes. The entire videos is excellent.
Here's an insight into the politics, such as UN Agenda 21 & Agenda 2030. Our lords & masters are NOT Divine Angels, they are Demons!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM4pBmZ9fTU

[Brian Peacock]

Thank you for that video Galaxian - it aptly demonstrates my point. Moral arguments which seek to refute the science are a fallacy of composition. Arguments over what we should do as a society given the facts of the matter are a different matter. However, we are not treated to that here, but instead we get a duplititous narrative which casts climate science and scientists as a malign and mendacious force. It's made clear from this video that its contributors are not in favour of structural measures to mitigate the climate and environmental emergency, instead they favour the corporatists business-as-usual status quo which places profits and the avoidance of the consequential environmental costs associated with doing absolutely nothing but more of the same. To call an entire branch of robust science a malicious hoax in this context is an example of moral hypocrisy of the highest order.

[Tero]

Actually a good point. Capitalism is not set up to work with any reductions. Only spending is "good."