Off Topic Climate Change
- Thread starter Looney Leftie
- Start date
- Status
You really have no idea what you are even posting
ice extent was as low in the early 70s 30s and late 1880s
"1980s average" is a massive cherry pick fail as the 70s was the height of sea ice extend in the 20th century, all of the 20th century had lower extend than the 1970s both before and after, but you and all the climatards want to ignore pre 1970s ice lows because CO2 cant be blamed.
You types like Snopes so I'll use your type of fact check source
NYT WAPO AP all reported the same things we hear today, in 1922"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post — 88 years ago!"
The text in the above example is a genuine transcription of a 1922 newspaper article, an Associated Press account which appeared on
page 2 of the Washington Post on 2 November of that year:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/
You must log in or register to see images
Last edited:
IPCC 1990, as we see, even as recent as 1972, arctic sea ice extent. This why climatards only want to start at 1979
and if we look back a hundred years, we see CO2 cant be blamed on the mid 20th century low
And we can see exactly why you start at 1979, the highest point of sea ice extent in the arctic in the past 130 or more years
It's no worse now than it was nearly 90 years ago
In fact we had a 70s sea ice boon despite spewing out CO2 for 30 years, when WWII and the decades that followed caused emissions to shoot up
"70s cooling scare never happened" eh.. clearly, this was the biggest ice advance in modern history, and it indeed caused scientists to think it possible a mini ice age onset might occur, and that high is your "start point"
Only the little ice age gave us more sea ice than we have had in the 20th and 21st century, than the last 10,000 years
You have to be a moron to blame CO2, and a completely dishonest clown to keep ignoring all of the evidence that this is natural not man made.
Either that or you are not well. You are a science denier, a history denier too it seems
You must log in or register to see images
and if we look back a hundred years, we see CO2 cant be blamed on the mid 20th century low
And we can see exactly why you start at 1979, the highest point of sea ice extent in the arctic in the past 130 or more years
It's no worse now than it was nearly 90 years ago
In fact we had a 70s sea ice boon despite spewing out CO2 for 30 years, when WWII and the decades that followed caused emissions to shoot up"70s cooling scare never happened" eh.. clearly, this was the biggest ice advance in modern history, and it indeed caused scientists to think it possible a mini ice age onset might occur, and that high is your "start point"
You must log in or register to see images
Only the little ice age gave us more sea ice than we have had in the 20th and 21st century, than the last 10,000 years
You must log in or register to see images
You have to be a moron to blame CO2, and a completely dishonest clown to keep ignoring all of the evidence that this is natural not man made.
Either that or you are not well. You are a science denier, a history denier too it seems
Last edited:
Of course not.
I like to demonstrate the ******ation of fallacious arguments, or in Loon's case, disingenuous arguments. You have to actually ignore history, and ignore even the IPCC's own report to make claims that anything today with sea ice is unusual.
Of course, everyone who understands how it works, knows, if scientists say there is no problem, they don't get funding to study non problems. No funding, no job, as it is a big part of a scientists job to bring in funding.
It's not some conspiracy, simply put, if you dont tow the line and upset the funding gravy train, you will be smeared, and shut out, as a post grad, forget getting a job at any of the institutions that are hooked on all that money. Simples. You try tell your boss that you want to do science that may have results that will threaten millions in funding of your boss' institution, what do you think he would say, as well as your coworkers who are also all depending, banking on that cash to fund their research papers, pay post grads ect..
More importantly, I am right, both technically and logically.
Last edited:
Wasting your time, if you post in huge bold letters that the climate is changing but has little to do with man the shout from the mice will come backIPCC 1990, as we see, even as recent as 1972, arctic sea ice extent. This why climatards only want to start at 1979
You must log in or register to see images
and if we look back a hundred years, we see CO2 cant be blamed on the mid 20th century low
And we can see exactly why you start at 1979, the highest point of sea ice extent in the arctic in the past 130 or more years
It's no worse now than it was nearly 90 years ago
"70s cooling scare never happened" eh.. clearly, this was the biggest ice advance in modern history, and it indeed caused scientists to think it possible a mini ice age onset might occur, and that high is your "start point"
You must log in or register to see images
Only the little ice age gave us more sea ice than we have had in the 20th and 21st century, than the last 10,000 years
You must log in or register to see images
You have to be a moron to blame CO2, and a completely dishonest clown to keep ignoring all of the evidence that this is natural not man made.
Either that or you are not well. You are a science denier, a history denier too it seems
"Climate change denier"
Wasting your time, if you post in huge bold letters that the climate is changing but has little to do with man the shout from the mice will come back
"Climate change denier"
They just don't understand how the money faucet can utterly corrupt science.
AGW is junk science, but its junk science that brings in hundreds of millions in funding to universities and institutions, and they are not giving that cash up, **** no
also not giving up all that lavish traveling biz class on Etihad airlines to big shindigs in places like Cancun and Morocco.
Yep, and anyone who doesn't tow the line is abruptly cut adrift.
They just don't understand how the money faucet can utterly corrupt science.
AGW is junk science, but its junk science that brings in hundreds of millions in funding to universities and institutions, and they are not giving that cash up, **** no
That is how you get "consensus".
If you push everyone that does not agree, push them out, then everyone left agrees. Voila, consensus.
Many of the people who worked on the early IPCC reports are called deniers today
That is how you get "consensus".
If you push everyone that does not agree, push them out, then everyone left agrees. Voila, consensus.
Many of the people who worked on the early IPCC reports are called deniers today
And the 'solutions' are largely implemented by centrally guided strategists, rather than scientists or planners.
Not all of those forming a consensus are climatologists either.
Take the red light out of your TV too, that standby light is making the weather worse!!
FYI those energy saver bulbs we all had forced down our necks, give you bad eyesight
The consensus position is 100% and that is "humans have some effect". Everyone agrees on that.
There is no consensus that "humans have caused most or all warming since 1950", there is no consensus that there is danger from slow gradual warming either.
It's Saturday ffs. Lighten up man.
I am light, just logged in before I have a game of Company of Heroes 2 with my bro.
Replying to posts is not not being light
Enjoy the weekend matey, or what's left of it. I missed all the footy today, was out buying fish and ****. Waiting for match of the day
Who said that?Take the red light out of your TV too, that standby light is making the weather worse!!
FYI those energy saver bulbs we all had forced down our necks, give you bad eyesight
- Status