I have been banging on for ages about sea level rise as a major factor that will affect us, and in the first video, Father Christmas on his day off explains how sea level rise is likely to be exponential, and how when you are on an exponential curve, if you look back, things seem to be changing gradually, but when you look forwards, you are facing a wall of abrupt change. His topic is the North polar region and Greenland as you would expect from Santa. Santa suggests you cut back on the meat a bit.



So for some balance, here is my favourite doom-merchant showing an ongoing collapse of sea ice in the Antarctic that you can follow live via links in the description on youtube.

Just for some realism, for balance:

It isn’t uncommon for climate skeptics to claim climate predictions have been wrong. Many climate change predictions are based on modeling, which involves putting data into a computer program and having the program make predictions. It’s not a perfect science, as it’s difficult to account for all the relevant data about an entire planet.

One way to determine a model’s accuracy is to look at old models and see how well they withstood the test of time. A 2019 study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters showed that of 17 climate models published from 1970 to 2007, 10 closely matched the global average temperatures that occurred. That number increased to 14 after "accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate," according to a 2020 NASA article about the study.

Another 2012 study in the journal Nature Climate Change found that 1990 predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were fairly accurate. IPCC had suggested that by 2030, Earth would have warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius, which would amount to about 0.55 degrees Celsius by 2012. The warming that occurred was about 0.39 degrees Celsius.

Despite the difference in the projected and actual temperatures, the 1990 prediction is accurate, Penny Whetton, senior principal research scientist at the Australian government agency Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and a lead author for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, told the nonprofit news website The Conversation in 2012. The difference between the projected 0.55 degrees and the observed 0.39 degrees is because of natural fluctuations, Whetton said.

"This is good evidence to show that what the IPCC has been saying for a while is coming true," she added.

Or, as climate denying idiots would say: “No climate predictions have come true!”

People have been saying silly things and getting predictions wrong for as long as they have been talking. But to do it deliberately, as you do, is fortunately much rarer — unenlightened

What makes you think that your predictions and claims are any better than mine? I present evidence to support my claims. For example:

- the report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912.The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago was based on this report

- the quote from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922

Both of these items show that climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Can you prove that my evidence is not true?

You are so very stupid, you cannot read your own evidence. I cannot help you.

You are so very stupid, you cannot read your own evidence. I cannot help you. — unenlightened

You obviously can't prove that my evidence is not true. Resorting to personal insults shows that you have no scientific rationale.

P.S. I don't want help from an alarmist idiot. :scream:

Or, as climate denying idiots would say: “No climate predictions have come true!” — Mikie

I enjoy being insulted by climate-change/global-warming alarmists because it shows that they are desperate, irrational, and have no scientific rationale. :scream:

Conversations with climate deniers:

(1) Stupid bullshit stated that you’ve heard a million times and that has been debunked a million times.

(2) You walk them through it.

(3) They move on to the next idiotic thing.

Or, after multiple times of going through this, (2) is skipped. Then: (3)b denier says “See! You can’t engage with the ‘argument’”. (The “argument” being searching the web for climate denial nonsense and AI summaries, copying them and pasting them.)

On we go. :yawn:



This was interesting, thanks.

Santa suggests you cut back on the meat a bit. — unenlightened

What do you think Santa does with the reindeer that get too old to pull his sleigh? Apparently reindeer burgers are very tasty. If you look at the size of Santa's belly he is obviously not vegan or vegetarian.

Also, it is too cold to grow vegetables at the North Pole. Does Santa have to get his vegetables flown in?

I have been banging on for ages about sea level rise as a major factor that will affect us — unenlightened

Sea levels have been slowly rising since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. Coastal cities have not disappeared though, because in the normal course of constantly rebuilding structures and infrastructures, we have been elevating them. For the most part, this is not a piece of some grand master plan (other than building codes for new structures), but the basic fact is that “new” cities are constantly being built on top of “old cities,” a practice that has gone on for at least a few thousand years. — The Global Warming Apocalypses That Didn’t Happen

So he cites the Cato Institute. :rofl:

which would amount to about 0.55 degrees Celsius by 2012. The warming that occurred was about 0.39 degrees Celsius.

If somebody promised you $55,000 but only gave you $39,000, would you be happy?

The difference between the projected 0.55 degrees and the observed 0.39 degrees is because of natural fluctuations

Every prediction is accurate if you attribute the difference to natural fluctuations.

LMAO. Same shit different page.

So he cites the Cato Institute. — Mikie

This is a typical climate-change/global-warming alarmist response to an inconvenient truth. Ad hominem. If they don't have any way of disproving a statement then they resort to attacking the person who made the statement.

Respond to the statement Mikie, not the person who made the statement.

P.S.

Another common tactic used by climate-change/global-warming alarmists when cornered is to go silent.

What if the person is a well-established idiot and the statement is tired, long-refuted, regurgitated denialist bullshit?

See above. We’re on (3)b.

LMAO. Same shit different page. — AmadeusD

Conflict habituated

, why do you consistently call others alarmists and scaremongers? Did "concerned" (heck, or "caring") go out of fashion? And unenlightened...? → Aug 1, 2024

Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a finite planet is either mad or an economist :D — whoever

What I find hilarious is that it’s not just “alarmist,” which we’d all understand— he has to, each time, type out “climate change/global warming alarmist.” :lol:

When you have the intellect of a fruit fly…

why do you consistently call others alarmists and scaremongers? — jorndoe

Why do alarmists consistently call anybody who doesn't totally agree with them "deniers"?

People like Mikie will never stop calling other people "deniers". There seems to be no middle ground between Mikie and reasonable people.

When you have the intellect of a fruit fly… — Mikie

Here is Google's AI Overview when asked the question "how intelligent are fruit flies?"

Fruit flies are surprisingly intelligent, capable of complex behaviors like forming memories, making decisions based on gathered information, and navigating their environment, demonstrating cognitive abilities that were previously thought to be only present in mammals, even though their brains are much simpler compared to humans; research suggests they can "think before they act" and consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice.

Thank you for the compliment Mikie. Another scientific topic that you know nothing about. :rofl:

From what I can see, Mikie doesn't have the ability to "think before acting" or "considering the complexity of a situation before making a choice". What is it like to be outsmarted by a fruit fly Mikie.

What I find hilarious is that it’s not just “alarmist,” which we’d all understand— he has to, each time, type out “climate change/global warming alarmist.” — Mikie

That is because alarmists keep changing the name.
- global warming
- climate change
- climate crisis
- climate emergency
- climate breakdown
- climate collapse
- climate chaos
- climate whiplash
- global heating
- global boiling
- global weirding
- planetary fever
- planetary warming
- global meltdown
- global melting
- scorched Earth

I didn't want to type out "global warming/climate change/climate crisis/climate emergency/climate breakdown/climate collapse/climate chaos/climate whiplash/global heating/global boiling/global weirding/planetary fever/planetary warming/global meltdown/global melting/scorched Earth alarmist"

Climate deniers have the intellect of a fruit fly, but consider that a compliment. :lol:

As LA continues to burn due to climate change, it’s worth remembering this is global, and just the beginning:

Using data from researchers at the University of Maryland, recently updated to cover the years 2001 to 2023, we calculated that the area burned by forest fires increased by about 5.4% per year over that time period. Forest fires now result in nearly 6 million more hectares of tree cover loss per year than they did in 2001 — an area roughly the size of Croatia.

https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires

But have no fear — after 4 of the hottest years on record, remember what the Denier-in-Chief said, 4 years prior:



Still waiting. That’s so far turned out to be as accurate as “covid will be gone by easter [of 2020].”

Hmm , answering the question with a question instead? If you weren't called denier, what you call them?

In absence of anything better, I'll go by the (large) consensus among subject matter experts.

Scientific consensus on climate change | Wikipedia | science index
Evidence | NASA | science
Nature Climate Change | Springer Nature | science and discussion index
10 myths about climate change | WWF | errors
Consequences of climate change | European Commission | effects
Climate change | OECD | policy
+ a simple rational analysis → Aug 1, 2024.

Doesn't seem plausible that they're all in on some conspiracy or whatever, but people have ridiculously believed worse. Any ulterior motives would largely be financial in fossil fuel sectors. (Or just contrarians/conservatives/economists perhaps?) :shrug:

Good post. A lot of good resources to ignore— in favor of the latest from Steve Koonin or the CATO Institute.

why do you consistently call others alarmists and scaremongers? — jorndoe

I call people "alarmists" because they are warning people about a dangerous situation. They a raising an alarm about the consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels.

The definition of the word "alarmist" is "a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities". So "alarmist" can have a negative connotation, but not necessarily so. If the "alarmist" is warning people about a real dangerous situation, and they are not exaggerating the dangers, then using the word in this situation does not have a negative connotation.

If you weren't called denier, what you call them? — jorndoe

I think that the best substitute for "alarmist" is "activist". The word "activist" can have positive or negative connotations, often positive. Also, it is short and ends with "ist" (meaning a person who practices, is interested in, or believes in something).

In absence of anything better, I'll go by the (large) consensus among subject matter experts. — jorndoe

You are welcome to go by the (large) consensus. I try to look at the data and draw my own conclusions.

A consensus is not always correct. There can be groupthink (where dissenting opinions are suppressed, e.g. climate scientists influencing journal editors). There can be pressure to conform within a group. There can be financial considerations (the need to agree with the consensus in order to get funding etc.). Climate change is now a huge self sustaining industry (Big Climate Change, like there is Big Oil and Big Pharma, etc.).

Doesn't seem plausible that they're all in on some conspiracy or whatever, but people have ridiculously believed worse. Any ulterior motives would largely be financial in fossil fuel sectors — jorndoe

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Scientists (including climate scientists) have also got a number of motives (e.g. financial motives). The scientists who work for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, etc. are often seen (possibly incorrectly) as being paid to produce requested scientific results. Are climate scientists immune from the same thing? Do you believe that all climate scientists are "knights in shining armour"?

Big Climate Change, like there is Big Oil and Big Pharma — Agree-to-Disagree

:rofl:

(Big Climate Change, like there is Big [...] — Agree-to-Disagree

Is that the powerful windmill-industrial complex?

Do you believe that all climate scientists are "knights in shining armour"? — Agree-to-Disagree

No. Neither are all astronauts, yet the Earth still ain't flat.

Trump Stocks E.P.A. With Oil, Gas and Chemical Lobbyists

Top appointees include David Fotouhi, Mr. Zeldin’s second-in-command, a lawyer who recently challenged a ban on asbestos; Alex Dominguez, a former oil lobbyist who will work on automobile emissions; and Aaron Szabo, a lobbyist for both the oil and chemical industries who is expected to be the top air pollution regulator.

Lol — it’s like bad satire.

Climate deniers back in charge. It’s basically too late anyway, at this point. We’re likely on the road to 2.4 or more. Which will be catastrophic. We’re at 1.1 now and already seeing hundreds of billions in damages and many lives lost thanks to the warming by greenhouse gases.

We deserve what we get. Here’s hoping the worst of it strikes those who voted in this idiot.

Did "concerned" (heck, or "caring") go out of fashion? — jorndoe

I'm happy to claim "alarmist", as I am being battered by another storm, and the first official 'red warning' for a long time. If you look at a few economic commentators, you will see that every major economy is in trouble. While one can blame the oligarchs to an extent, one of the reasons that disaster capitalism is taking over the world is that disaster is taking over the world. We are getting poorer, because our stuff is burning, being blown down, washed away, drying out, etc. The rich can still make money from our desperation...

Is that the powerful windmill-industrial complex? — jorndoe

Big Climate Change is pushing the idea of net zero. It tries to demonize fossil fuels. It promotes solar energy and wind energy over other more reliable types of energy. It is trying to affect what forms of energy developing counties can use. It is trying to get everybody into EV's and stop people using fossil fuel vehicles. It is trying to affect what people eat. It funds science that supports its goals. Because of this climate scientists seem to be trying to outdo each other by coming out with more and more extreme claims and predicted catastrophic disasters.

Big Climate Change is using public money (e.g. money from taxes, etc.) to try and control what the public is allowed to do. According to the Climate Policy Initiative, the global "climate change industry," encompassing climate finance, reached an average of approximately $1.3 trillion annually in 2021/2022. This is close to the GDP of Indonesia.