ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

[rumme]

I'm out.

I dont blame you. I easily proved you were wrong, and now you wont even admit it , so the best alternative, is to get
" out" .

Punxr...this is for you....the experts and the satellite images PROVED the ice age cometh. Dont ignore it. This was valid, provable data . Be patriotic, trust them . :wink:

 

[rumme]

If we listened to the so called experts just a few decades ago, they told us the ice age may soon return.

No, they didn't.

It wasnt just the experts, and the magazines, and the tv shows, it was also the newspapers AND the trustworthy satellite images.

The big question now is, will you continue to be unable to swallow your pride, and admit you are wrong ?

 

[Dauntless]

Dude, you can hold a mirror up to them to show them they know they are trolls, doesn't mean they'll admit it. No need to rub their warts in it.

 

[rumme]

Dude, you can hold a mirror up to them to show them they know they are trolls, doesn't mean they'll admit it. No need to rub their warts in it.

It boils down to this. When a person cannot even ADMIT, that they are wrong on a subject, then such people are not trustworthy or objective.

We now know, the ICE AGE-GLOBAL COOLING claims of the 1970s, not only took place, but it was 100% INCORRECT.

Punxr told me that I was wrong, and the ice age claims did not happen in the 1970s...I took the time to prove he was wrong, and yet he will not admit it. This would indicate to me, that his opinions on many other things, are also flawed and his arrogance doesnt allow him to admit error or take in new evidence that may prove his prior beliefs are incorrect.

The eltists in charge of this planet, dont give a damn about you or us . This means any and all info they disperse, must not only be deeply questioned, but often doubted. Global warming acceptance = NEW TAXES....that alone, is enough for me to question the validity of global warming claims, due to human interactions.


Satellite images from the 1970s, PROVED a new ice age was coming...along with the data told to us from the experts. We see how accurate that was.

 

[billvon]

These deniers crack me up. Don't waste your time trying to explain anything to them. Their opinion on the subject is based purely on their political beliefs and no amount of facts will make them look at any evidence that does not come from some right-wing think tank.

Yep. There are several factors that are supporting all the anti-science groups lately (i.e. anti-evolution, anti-astrophysics, anti-abiogenesis, climate change denial) -

1) Anti-intellectualism. All the above groups have a common problem - the science is against them. They tried going the science route (i.e. the Wedge document) but that didn't work. So now they are trying to discredit science itself. "Well, I'm no scientist but . . ." as a brag. "Ivory tower elitists claim . . ." as an attack. "Well, it's just a theory" as a self-congratulatory statement of how little they understand science. "Well, scientists once predicted an ice age!" as a distortion. This also serves the meme of American exceptionalism and anti-immigration quite well; it's a lot easier to claim that America is #1 and immigrants are dangerous if you reject all the studies that say anything to the contrary.

2) Bothsiderism. Anti-science types no longer define responsible journalism as seeking the truth; now it is defined as "presenting both sides." Want to have a scientist on to talk about how animals and plants are evolving to deal with the changes in our world? You have to have an anti-intellectual to claim that there are no changes, and that evolution is all a big lie anyway. Want to have a report on how a Nazi murderer planned his attack? Have to have a white supremacist on as well to say how he's not guilty of anything. This is a tactic often used by school boards trying to push a religious agenda (i.e. creationism) - if you can portray both sides as equally valid, there's no reason to "believe" one over the other. "Teach the controversy" they say.

3) Funding. There is literally trillions of dollars invested in the fossil fuel industry - and all that money has a lot of power. "Distract distort deny" is the general plan when it comes to anti-science, and no one does that better than the fossil fuel industry. Singer and Seitz, two of the biggest deniers around, started out working for tobacco companies, where they worked to deny the health effects of cigarette smoke. And it worked - after the first Surgeon General's report on smoking depressed tobacco sales, their work brought sales back up. They then switched to climate change denial at the behest of the fossil fuel industry. A few scientists are funded as well; usually such funding remains hidden through clever laundering schemes. Occasionally scientists like Willie Soon are caught red-handed, but that's rare. Such funding accounts for most of the 3% of climate scientists who disagree with the theories behind AGW.

Good article by the Irish Times:
===============================
Anti-intellectualism versus the science of climate change
Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 01:00

The intense resistance by some to scientific findings on climate change is difficult to understand. Some climate change deniers present their case with zealot-like vehemence akin to a religious crusade. Their purpose is to undermine research and sow doubt in the wider public, encouraging the belief that the science is flawed so that dire, research-backed predictions can be dismissed. Such extremism cannot be put down to the extraordinary success of lobbyists driven by the financial whips applied by vested interests such as coal, transport, or manufacturing. Despite a “constructive” backdrop to global warming talks in Bonn this week, the results of their efforts, however, are easy to see in the growing uncertainty expressed by ordinary people and hesitancy of governments to take decisive steps to address climate change.

In the US commentators, including Paul Krugman, whose columns are published by this newspaper, have put it down to an anti-intellectualism; others talk of an anti-science bias. Certainly both can easily be found in the American psyche, and allow some to dismiss as bunkum the work of thousands of scientists worldwide.

Perhaps this is no surprise in a country where much of the population remains wedded to the idea that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old. Yet the same people are happy to accept scientific findings that deliver new drugs, medical treatments and improved technologies.
==================================

 

[rumme]

These deniers crack me up. Don't waste your time trying to explain anything to them. Their opinion on the subject is based purely on their political beliefs and no amount of facts will make them look at any evidence that does not come from some right-wing think tank.

Yep. There are several factors that are supporting all the anti-science groups lately (i.e. anti-evolution, anti-astrophysics, anti-abiogenesis, climate change denial) -

1) Anti-intellectualism. All the above groups have a common problem - the science is against them. They tried going the science route (i.e. the Wedge document) but that didn't work. So now they are trying to discredit science itself. "Well, I'm no scientist but . . ." as a brag. "Ivory tower elitists claim . . ." as an attack. "Well, it's just a theory" as a self-congratulatory statement of how little they understand science. "Well, scientists once predicted an ice age!" as a distortion. This also serves the meme of American exceptionalism and anti-immigration quite well; it's a lot easier to claim that America is #1 and immigrants are dangerous if you reject all the studies that say anything to the contrary.

2) Bothsiderism. Anti-science types no longer define responsible journalism as seeking the truth; now it is defined as "presenting both sides." Want to have a scientist on to talk about how animals and plants are evolving to deal with the changes in our world? You have to have an anti-intellectual to claim that there are no changes, and that evolution is all a big lie anyway. Want to have a report on how a Nazi murderer planned his attack? Have to have a white supremacist on as well to say how he's not guilty of anything. This is a tactic often used by school boards trying to push a religious agenda (i.e. creationism) - if you can portray both sides as equally valid, there's no reason to "believe" one over the other. "Teach the controversy" they say.

3) Funding. There is literally trillions of dollars invested in the fossil fuel industry - and all that money has a lot of power. "Distract distort deny" is the general plan when it comes to anti-science, and no one does that better than the fossil fuel industry. Singer and Seitz, two of the biggest deniers around, started out working for tobacco companies, where they worked to deny the health effects of cigarette smoke. And it worked - after the first Surgeon General's report on smoking depressed tobacco sales, their work brought sales back up. They then switched to climate change denial at the behest of the fossil fuel industry. A few scientists are funded as well; usually such funding remains hidden through clever laundering schemes. Occasionally scientists like Willie Soon are caught red-handed, but that's rare. Such funding accounts for most of the 3% of climate scientists who disagree with the theories behind AGW.

Good article by the Irish Times:
===============================
Anti-intellectualism versus the science of climate change
Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 01:00

The intense resistance by some to scientific findings on climate change is difficult to understand. Some climate change deniers present their case with zealot-like vehemence akin to a religious crusade. Their purpose is to undermine research and sow doubt in the wider public, encouraging the belief that the science is flawed so that dire, research-backed predictions can be dismissed. Such extremism cannot be put down to the extraordinary success of lobbyists driven by the financial whips applied by vested interests such as coal, transport, or manufacturing. Despite a “constructive” backdrop to global warming talks in Bonn this week, the results of their efforts, however, are easy to see in the growing uncertainty expressed by ordinary people and hesitancy of governments to take decisive steps to address climate change.

In the US commentators, including Paul Krugman, whose columns are published by this newspaper, have put it down to an anti-intellectualism; others talk of an anti-science bias. Certainly both can easily be found in the American psyche, and allow some to dismiss as bunkum the work of thousands of scientists worldwide.

Perhaps this is no surprise in a country where much of the population remains wedded to the idea that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old. Yet the same people are happy to accept scientific findings that deliver new drugs, medical treatments and improved technologies.
==================================

Quick, Bill..get out your ear muffs and jacket. Not long ago, the experts, scientists, climatologists, magazines, newspapers and data, PROVED the new ice age was right around the corner. The long term satelitte images also proved the ice age and global cooling was coming.

 

[rumme]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This newspaper article is for Bill and Punxr.

The experts are right again ! WHY WOULD WE DOUBT THEM ? :wink:

 

[rumme]

ROFL....The expert said we will be cooling down, for the next 2 centuries. OMG...this is hilarious.

Wait, lets change the scam , to global warming because of humans , and tax the dummies in society, who believe it.

 

[Dauntless]

Dude, you can hold a mirror up to them to show them they know they are trolls, doesn't mean they'll admit it. No need to rub their warts in it.

It boils down to this. When a person cannot even ADMIT, that they are wrong on a subject, then such people are not trustworthy or objective.

Yep. There are several factors that are supporting all the anti-science groups lately.

MORE ICE AGE ARTICLES/PREDICTIONS, BY THE EXPERTS, WE TRUST SO MUCH.

But isn't it at least better that the one is at least capable of being humiliated at the fool he's making of himself rather than keeping on stuffing his cenipede feet in his mouth. The man the other trolls here call their leader.

 

[rumme]

MORE ICE AGE ARTICLES/PREDICTIONS, BY THE EXPERTS, WE TRUST SO MUCH.

Somebody get Punxr back in this thread, so he can tell us " there wasnt any experts predicting a new ice age/ global cooling " :lol:

Now ask yourselves a question . Do you really think it is logical to put your complete trust in elitist sociopaths and fallible experts/scientists or corrupt politicians who want to put even more taxes on you, for global warming ?

 

[rumme]

To all my liberal, global warming friends on this thread.

Just think, if we denied the global cooling claims and ice age claims of the 1970s , told to us by the experts, scientists, climatologists and satellite imagery, you woulda been called a " global cooling denier" back in the 1970s .


Now, the new scam is to claim humans are causing the earth to heat up to quickly , and new taxation upon us, will help solve this warming trend , BUT, if you dont agree with these new claims, , you are now a " global warming denier" .

The lies and games and propagandas never end .

The sociopath leaders are masters at brainwashing us, and using us for endless social programming/experiments.

 

[neptronix]

Yes, humans should be more respectful of the environment , but when govt intervenes and tries to force things upon us, we have to ask, how much is to much ? If 50% of us in the U.S. decided to do 50% of our local travelling by bicycle/walking, is that enough ? How about if 50% of us never drive another car again..is that enough?

Well, people have been given the choice to do the right thing or not for many decades. It seems that only a few % of people chose to do the right thing. It seems that we can't count on the people to resist the lure of the McMansion, the SUV, etc. Even Al Gore has a HUGE McMansion. So where is the hope? how does this get fixed in a way that doesn't eventually involve shit tons of taxes and laws?

It becomes very complex and you end up with gov, pushing for more and more regulations, laws and taxes...cause we know, they seem to never get enough of those things , forced upon the rest of us.

Right, but at the same time, other people's pollution gets forced on the vulnerable, so it's truly no wonder that people go begging for the 'gun in the room' to put the clamp on others using taxation and regulation as an enforcement tool.

I'm one of those people who is vulnerable. I have been battling a sinus infection for a week now because of pollution, with blood coming out of my nose in the morning each day. Is it understandable that i'm a former environmental activist?

If the aersol sprays and fluorocarbons in heavy use prior to the 1990s, were gonna help cool the climate, then maybe we need to bring those consumer items back into the populace, so we can counteract the global warming claims we are now being fed. :wink:

Actually, this is the exact situation China is in. They rely on dimming gasses from coal and they're kind of locked into that. So they're geoengineering their part of the planet twice. Not a great path if you ask me.

Much of this is pseudoscience , or normal cycles of the planets cooling/warming trends and then factor in the abnormal cooling/warming trends of the past, which are bound to happen in the present and future, regardless if humans were alive or not.

Well, i'm more interested in data. We see the ice caps melting per the daily surface count that's courtesy of the NOAA. We can look at the vostok ice core samples for a million year record of what's "normal" in carbon levels and temperatures. You can see permafrost thawing in Siberia and revealing the remains of a massive forest. And hey, i live in Utah, so my little apartment would have been about 500 feet underwater 100,000's of years ago.

This kind of data brings up more questions than it provides answers. There is still a lot of things we don't know - but we do know that pollution kills a reasonable sized portion of human beings, critters, and plant life.

So the environmentalists are closer to being on the right track than those who have their heads really far in the sand, as far as the quality of life on this planet goes.

 

[rumme]

Nep, I suffered with sinus infections for 40 years...was constantly on antibiotics.

Heres a few natural things that have really helped me :

Had my nose broke years ago in a bar fight ...finally had my septum repaired, ballon sinuplasty , and radio frequency turbinate reduction done...this helped.

Then, I do collodial silver in my nasal passages, neti pot of saltwater , iodoral tablets for my thyroid .

As far as global warming happening, only because of human interactions , I dont buy it. In 20 more years from now, I dont doubt these same experts claim the data and science they used today., was also faulty, and now they think the new ice age, from the 70s, is on the way. I fell for the ice age predictions in the 1970s ...and the " peak oil" hysteria around the same time and I used to be a staunch supporter of the global warming because of humans , claims.

The more I investigated, the more I had to admit, that I had been lied to before, and believed it and this earth is prone to countless cycles of warming and cooling, whether humans were alive or not.

Yes, I want people to conserve more and pollute less. I dont want scam politicians taxing the people even more based on global temperature changes. So called experts, we trust, are often wrong and often LIE. There is a provable track record of this, and both , you and me admit it.

 

[neptronix]

The more I investigated, the more I had to admit, that I had been lied to before, and believed it and this earth is prone to countless cycles of warming and cooling, whether humans were alive or not.

Yeah, there have been wild swings in the past, but they usually didn't happen over the course of a few decades, unless we're talking about an epic volcanic explosion. Of course geo-engineering the earth with fossil fuel byproducts is going to have SOME level of effect. It seems that the effect has been exaggerated or mis-attributed in the media, but.. there are still effects, and it is one of many negative effects of pollution.

Yes, I want people to conserve more and pollute less. I dont want scam politicians taxing the people even more based on global temperature changes. So called experts, we trust, are often wrong and often LIE. There is a provable track record of this, and both , you and me admit it.

And people have a very bad track record for conserving more and polluting less.
So government sucks and people suck. It should be no surprise that some goofball goes.. 'hey government, how about another serving of your shitty solutions?', since the SUV shaming, advocacy for bikes, etc had failed.

Obviously nobody is really going about fixing the problem in the right way. I like voluntary solutions because they're easy and most often free; actually sometimes you save shit tons of money with them. But getting people on board? good friggin' luck..

 

[rumme]

Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, the current data that experts, are telling us, is not lies/ faulty info.

[ YES, IM WILLING TO IGNORE ALL THE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF THE experts LYING TO US IN THE PAST OR MAKING CONJECTURES WHICH PROVED TO BE WRONG }

How much more taxes should be imposed on us ? How can we be guaranteed that money is not wasted or stolen by politicians ?

What if they impose a additional 10% tax on all of us, to stop global warming, then 5 years from now, they tell us global warming is still happening, so they need to tax us more ?

Theres just to many negative variables , to put trust in these corrupt talking heads.

Furthermore, we are ignoring all the recent advancements that have been made, which cost us MORE money, that was supposed to improve enviromental impact. A perfect example is every car currently manufactured for sale in the U.S. These vehicles are VASTLY superior as far as pollution is concerned, to the vehicles of only a few decades ago , and we pay alot more money for these vehicles and this new technology that is supposed to be more enviromental.


The problem is simple, our corrupt govt, never seems to get enough from us , so when they suggest new taxes, to save the planet from global warming, one has to ask themselves , do these corrupt politicians really care about us, will the new tax monies raised, be raided by politicians , AND, will the new taxes we pay, really cure/solve global climate change ?

When all our politicians in America are willing to give 10% of their annual income towards haulting global climate change , and they are also willing to stop using forms of transportation on a regular basis, that only add to the issues of global climate change, then I will consider them to be more trustworthy on the issue.

More taxes on us, is not even likely to stop global climate change. As I have proven on this thread, the experts from the 1970s, and all their data , and satelitte images, which were supposed to be trusted and PROVE the ice age was coming, was a complete farce. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

These experts can tell us any data they want, and us peons in society have no real way of knowing if it is accurate or not, and if it means ocean levels will rise by 2 foot by the year 2080.

These so called experts can baffle us with bullshit, on a continual basis, like they have done in the past, many many times.

Yeah, the long term satelitte images from the 1970s, PROVED a new ice age was right around the corner, and back then, the people said ' IT HAS TO BE TRUE, BECAUSE THE EXPERTS SAID SO, AND THEY HAVE ALL THE SATELITTE IMAGES TO PROVE IT.

gimme a break.

 

[neptronix]

I don't know what to tell you. I don't think the government is the solution either, but that's the way things are going to go because most people think the gun in the room is the best tool.

It is actually our choice. We could have a big holding hands across the world moment and decide to trade the F150's in for priuses. Carbon emissions would go down instead of up, and then the government has no case against the citizens and a yellow safety vest march would actually be warranted AND effective.

But that's not going to happen, so you are going to get more laws and regulations. Especially when renewable or less harmful forms of energy get closer to a half-share of generation..

Government is a symptom of people's irresponsibility..

 

[Dauntless]

To all my liberal, global warming friends on this thread

Are you talking about the people who, several years ago, denied the Japanese ever did anything bad in Asia during WWII? Amazing thread.

 

[rumme]

I don't know what to tell you. I don't think the government is the solution either, but that's the way things are going to go because most people think the gun in the room is the best tool.

It is actually our choice. We could have a big holding hands across the world moment and decide to trade the F150's in for priuses. Carbon emissions would go down instead of up, and then the government has no case against the citizens and a yellow safety vest march would actually be warranted AND effective.

But that's not going to happen, so you are going to get more laws and regulations. Especially when renewable or less harmful forms of energy get closer to a half-share of generation..

Government is a symptom of people's irresponsibility..

Peace sells, but whos buying ?

I guess im trying to wake a few people up, to the fact that more taxes on us, isnt gonna stop or solve
global climate change AND

the experts we want to trust and are told we must trust, are often untrustworthy.

How could anyone deny this, after I posted numerous expert claims of a new ice age approaching, just a few decades ago ? Even the satelitte images proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, the ice age was on the way.

 

[neptronix]

Because of your former run ins with others, their minds are probably hermetically sealed against anything you have to say, even if it's credible.

Nobody really liked it when i said i doubt what impact AGW has on here either.
I didn't change anyone's mind back then.

Some people hold beliefs as if they were religious. Oftentimes, without evidence, but the truth is not the point.
You can't really do anything about that.
Sometimes you have to let bad ideas play themselves out in order for them to be rejected.

Gimme the fart tax already!

 

[rumme]

Because of your former run ins with others, their minds are probably hermetically sealed against anything you have to say, even if it's credible.

100% correct....even when Punxr adamantly declared I was wrong, and that experts NEVER claimed a ice age was approaching, back in the 1970s. I took the time to post the evidence....and he will not accept it . I posted magazine articles, newspaper articles, scientific tv show , and even articles discussing the long term satellite images prove the ice age is coming. What does Punxr do ? He discredits all that evidence, which proves his claims were wrong, because he cannot admit his error. This is one of the worst faults of the human race, maybe even more dangerous then the supposed global warming . :wink:

People love to embrace pleasing lies, over unpleasant truths and people are often horrible at admitting errors.

 

[neptronix]

I had a similar experience.
Water under the bridge to me. Not a good use of my time anyway. Realized these beliefs ( including mine ) had little bearing to what sort of decisions would be made.

 

[rumme]

NEW STUDY, BY THE EXPERTS WE MUST ALWAYS TRUST , EVEN THOUGH, THIS NEW STUDY, COUNTERACTS THE NUMEROUS OTHER STUDIES OF RECENT YEARS, THAT CLAIMS ALOCOHOL HAS NO REAL HELATH BENEFITS.

These studies/experts can endlessly baffle us with bullshit, change the claims of each separate study done so the newest study, contradicts the last study, etc. One decade, we are on the brink of a ice age, the next decade we are on the brink of global floods because the experts/govt officials now tell us its getting to warm, to quick, because of humans , so more taxation can solve this disaster.


Screw these sociopaths and their endless lies and misinformation which constantly changes year to year, study to study. Much of it is a game of deceptions , brainwashing, social experimentations, social programming.


Its funny, because it was only a few months ago, the latest study, reported on our lying media, that alcohol consumption , now, has no real health benefits. I actually had the tv on, that night and saw the report on local news. BUT HERES THE LATEST AND GREATEST STUDY....until the new one comes out next year, and claims the exact opposite .

https://justreadly.com/new-study-confirms-gin-tonic-is-miracle-cure-to-prevent-colds-this-winter/?fbclid=IwAR1kq6RuAhl5boCc3Ko4GPkT7fC2wYOHuOKBOPe995kZrJ7kzxq8iYr7scY

 

[neptronix]

Bad "science" which is underwritten by various industry groups or other types of interested parties is not an example of all science.

If you do not know how to sort good science from bad, well, i feel sorry for you to be honest. Although most people are in this camp.

Oftentimes, the media's presentation of papers includes a wild distortion of what the paper said. Sometimes this distortion can go as far as saying the opposite of what the study itself said.

Read the actual paper. Learn to understand methodology. Learn to look at funding sources and conflict of interest. Learn to look for repeated bad actors.

IE if you see a paper on 'how not bad sugar is' and it's funded by Coca Cola's science arm, maybe you wanna just skip reading that one entirely, and also skip any news source that parrots such bullshit.
You might want to refer to some work by a group that researches human metabolism instead..

Or do what i do and look at raw data minus any commentary.
For example, this is all one needs to know about the arctic ice body. One can see that it is exponentially decreasing



Now let's consider the source of the data. Where's the funding? what else do they do? well, the NOAA basically collects data and reports it..

And you can and should ignore articles such as this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

 

[LockH]

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s annual Arctic Report Card"... The Arctic is in even worse shape than you realize

The Arctic Ocean has lost 95 percent of its oldest, thickest ice.

:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener.../arctic-is-even-worse-shape-than-you-realize/

 

[jimw1960]

Apparently, in the denier universe a bunch of magazine and newspaper articles all citing the same dubious source carry as much weight as thousands of actual peer reviewed science journals. I guess they carry even more weight if you post them over and over again to hijack the thread.