Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

How does one account for the fact that there are only half the caribou now than about 3 years ago in Alaska?

Norton Sound, in western Alaska, just froze over. Usually, if freezes over in November.

As noted in his bio (which I posted previously) David Karoly in an HONORARY professor- IOW, a wannabee, a fake and a fraud.
A recognized 'expert' on 'climate change modelling' by whom? Those who have a profit and control incentive for perpetuating the Climate Catastrophe fraud like Al Gore? Michael Mann and his merry band of hockey stick fraudsters? The UN IPCC?
And using the Nobel Prize as some sort of recommendation is just freaking laughable. The Nobel Peace Prize is a political award- basically an attaboy for those who espouse the 'correct' (ie, socialist) political views.


Put on a pedestal? For posting a link to his bio? That's just downright pathetic- and reeks of desperation.


Jeez- talk about false claims. Is the whole Alarmist agenda built upon a foundation of lies? Never mind. Rhetorical question.
Mörner's research clearly shows that sea levels are rising- and have been since the last glacial maximum. The part that you and your fellow Alarmists conveniently ignore is that he found no credible evidence to indicate an accelerated rise due to human activity.




What a load of crap.
Tide gauge data show a marked *lowering* trend of sea levels beginning in 2007. (See link below)


Guilt by association? Attempting to discredit the argument by attacking the messenger? That is laughably pathetic. "climate science denial group"? ROTFLMAO!


Is the Australian government part of your "climate science denial group" conspiracy?

Pacific Sea Level and Geodetic Monitoring / Geoscience Australia

One doesn't because it's not true.
The current decline is about 5% which is within the historical fluctuation rate of 4-6%.
More info here.

EDIT: Update: More recent numbers show that herd numbers are actually increasing again.

Last edited by SoloSailor on 26 Dec 2019, 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

False. There are many people who have provided verifiable data that is contradictory to Alarmist claims.


You have just described the actions of climate alarmists.


Patently false. Evolution, etc. can and have been confirmed by observation and repeatable experiment. Not so with climate projection models. Any criticism of the data is met with the cry "the science is settled!"- which is about as unscientific as you can get.
Now who, really, are the gullible ones?

While I have provided evidence and all you have done is label me "Goebbals" and pages of hyperbole. Following a time honoured tradition which I am quite familiar with on WP .

As I said before inundation of small islands is a reality that can't be ignored because it's inconvenient
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... evel-rise/

Despite interference from Trump and the fossil fuel lobby US government departments impartial monitoring/modelling recognise With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century. In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

I am amazed you would even debate hard science with pseudoscience and hyperbole like you expect to make a convincing argument??

BTW you failed my challenge. Nils-Axel Morner has links to the Trump administration and has been caught publishing his climate research in fringe open access journals with little scrutiny of his science
https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-denial ... 45703.html

Anyone interested in understanding how climate deniers operate feel free to read what other real experts think of Morner's historic pseudoscientific theories.
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=93&&n=1153

It demonstrates how taking an opposite view can help get you funding from vested interests linked to fossil fuel. Similar types of scientific fraudsters used pseudoscience about smoking to get money from the tobacco industry until universities banned grant money from this source.

You just can't stop lying can you?
Your posting history clearly demonstrates all of the hallmarks of sociopathic behavior.
Begone troll.

Permanent Ignore now engaged.

Not sure how scientific consensus is considered a lie? nice to get insight into your mind...farewell and get help

Firstly,
Why is the far left afraid of sceptics?
If the sceptics talk rubbish, it only helps their cause.

Secondly,
There is a lot of garbage claims made by the far left.
Dig a little deeper and you will find it.

For example:

If you look closely into the infamous 97% figure,
You will find that many of the so-called climate scientists are actually "Citizen Scientist Activists" which had an agenda to push.

If you look at the more recent: "500 climate scientists sign a petition",
You will note Micky Mouse and others of his ilk were part of the 500.

People can't just accept what is said without investigation and consideration.
That is left to the "ignorant people" who need others to think for them.
I am not an I.P. type of guy.
I prefer to be sceptical in most complex situations/instances.

Here is a youtube podcast you might find informative:

https://youtu.be/stGBDI2SgEU

Then why are you listening to the mass debating in here?

Come here my little troll.
Pepe still luvs you despite all your nonsense.

What's wrong with the conception that there might be man-made climate change?

I don't believe in the cataclysmic thing---but I believe climate change is happening.

No, because most people won't understand it's rubbish. These "skeptics" are following a common technique, where they've failed to make traction with the scientific community, so they go to laypeople who don't really know the subject and say lots of stuff that sounds like it could be true, but is really not.

Moit,
Settle down,
We don't want you to have a coronary.
You bring rare intelligence and information into the climate change debate.

I don't want you to burn out.
Pace yourself, man.

Firstly,
Wow, finally existential recognition.

Secondly,
You do see the irony here?
Non-far-left thinkers can say the same thing,
Hence the need for scepticism rather than simply accepting what has been given them on a silver platter.

Either side can use this tactic of obfuscation, no?
And from what I have seen, both do.

Governments refuse to take action on climate change because they are corrupt and incompetent and place profits ahead of people and the environment.