For all those who scream “you are a science denier”

Ice melts, who would've thunk it? 🤷‍♂️

It melted over thousands of years due to a shift in the earths orbit.
It is what’s happening today, but 5000 times slower.
Now downvote my comment, rightist science denying snowflakes. You’ll melt soon enough.

Great, so now we’re on the same page that co2 emissions are not the main factor.

Co2 emissions are the factor today, which affects it faster than a shift in the earth's orbit.

Even authors of the greenhouse gas emissions doomsday stories admit their studies are flawed. One thing they like to do is use incredibly simple earth models to try and prove their point which won’t hold up in a more detailed model. That is why out of over 100 global temperature warming predictions, satellite data has shown that the actual warming has been lower than the median prediction since 2000 and has even been lower than the lowest predictions since 2010. Can you guess why they still preach the doomsday message? Because it sells.

“Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history. Relative to Earth’s entire record, carbon-dioxide levels are at historically low levels; they only appear high when compared to the dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide that occurred in Earth’s very recent history. The geologic record reveals carbon dioxide has almost always been in Earths’ atmosphere in much greater concentrations than it is today. For example, 600 million years ago, when history’s greatest birth of new animal species occurred, atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations exceeded 6,500 parts per million (ppm) — an amount that’s 17 times greater than it is today [...] There are periods in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide concentrations were many times higher than they are today, yet temperatures were identical to, or even colder than, modern times. The claim that fossil-fuel emissions control atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations is also invalid, as atmospheric concentrations have gone up and down in the geological record, even without human influence.”

You might say: “But methane is a more potent greenhouse gas what about that?” The increase is small, only 0.4W/m2 which is not even close enough to account for the warming.

Love it!

5,000 BC the Sahara Desert was a jungle. Climate changes all the time, it hasn't stopped for 4.6B years, and it will continue to do so.

The ONLY thing that affects the earth's global temperature is that big orange glowy thing in the sky. The only thing that has come close to the power of the sun has been volcanic activity.

Man is far to insignificant to affect the earths temperature.

If you look at the earth's history we are in a CO2 deficit. We have had much more CO2 in the atmosphere in the early history of the earth. Even those times when the earth was covered in ice.

Ice core samples have shown that CO2 did not always precede a rise in the earth's temperature.

But the biggest indicator is why there is no global warming is that I still have to shovel snow from my driveway in the winter. We were promised relief from that by 2000 and then again in 2010. My cousin in Florida hasn't had to move. The ocean hasn't swallowed them up. The earth's temperature just has not cooperated with the global warming politicians...oops I meant to say scientists... uh... no.. I was right the first time, global warming politicians. It was politicians in the United Nations who invented this nonsense.

priceless!

What caused the glacier to melt was carbon emissions. During that period there was a concentration of carbon coming from the southern ocean due to their glaciers melting and releasing carbon that had been trapped in the ice. Additionally, there had been an orbital change causing sunlight to strike the Glacier in New York causing it to melt. The Glaciers reflecting heat and light would be trapped by the carbon that was being released into the air Melting the glacier and ending the Ice age.

Why were the glaciers in the south melting? You’re just moving the problem a step back, not answering the question.

Well previously the sun had been pointing towards the south so it had already been melting slowly for a while. By the time the Orbital change occurred it had already begun to release carbon and when the Sun started pointing towards New York the heat that was being reflected by the glacier was being trapped by the carbon bringing the overall temperature of the earth up, releasing more carbon, and eventually melting the Glaciers.

I find it fascinating how much you know for a certainty about what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Orbital change created the Sahara Desert 6,000 years ago. Perhaps it is still changing.
Maybe Gates can stop orbital change

Thank goodness it wasn’t cave men driving hummers!

https://i.imgflip.com/57tlva.jpg

Slow, natural climate change eventually led to these glaciers melting.

15,000 years geologically is fast. Plate tectonics is slow.

I mean slow in the human perception of time

Fast is the temperature drop caused by a large volcano: Krakatoa

When I say slow, I mean in the scale of thousands of years. When I say fast, I mean in the last 2-300 years

Excellent.

Bill Gates The Science Guy

Perhaps Billy needs to back off.
Upvote

It's truly fascinating how you have no clue what the Milankovitch cycles are. This happened on the exact timescale of one of the cycles. Mammoths also actually kept the Earth cool. Snow reflects light because it is white, but grass absorbs it because it is darker, so more heat is absorbed by grass than snow. But Mammoths ate any grass before it melted the snow. Then humans killed a good chunk of Mammoths. This allowed grass to melt the snow, which in turn got rid of their habitat

It is truly fascinating you would ASSUME that I do not know about Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch didn’t write anything about mammoths, grass or albedo.

If the ice cap melted as you say because of the timing of Milankovitch cycles, then why are you writing about albedo?

For the Albedo, I just went off on a bit of a tangent, just to say that Mammoths actually didn't affect the temperature.

My point was that the ice melted because of Milankovitch cycles. It melted at the same time the ice age ended, which is controlled by Milankovitch cycles

why do they even bother with tracking CO2 levels, glacier recession rates, and global temperature when they could just ask you? it's simply ignorant of them. that's what it is.

I think the point is that all those climatologists don’t say the same thing. Not what Norse green says. As usual you try to oversimplify and vilify lefty.

i think that you non-scientists try to ridicule science when you don't understand it, and that's never going to go well for you. it's nice that you're interested, but as with your Bill of Rights mistake, you should try reading first and arguing second. works much better that way.

See I know what you hate is people are allowed to speak against your narratives. It makes you angry to your core doesn’t it. Too bad, you choose to believe one group of scientists who are wholly refuted by other scientists. Then you proclaim that
Your scientists are better. Lol of course they are in your opinion. Yet you have been wrong on so many things why would anyone want to follow your beliefs.

you have the essence of it. when you're as misguided as you are, the only people who will pay attention to you are the ones who are equally foolish.

Oh you mean like the SJW socialist left? Ya I agree only an idiot drone would follow something that has repeatedly failed and been proven wrong.

But that is just it. Early on when this scam started there was a document that was signed by several thousands of scientists. Only the problem is that not all of them were scientists of any kind. Many of the real scientists never signed that document and demanded their signature be removed from the document.

Plus there are a ton of scientists who have not sold out to any government who find absolutely no evidence whatsoever of global warming.

And then there is the earth. 1997 was the hottest year of this current warming period. The earth has stopped cooperating altogether with this scam. It has cooled slightly since then. And as we are heading into a solar minimum non-government bought and paid for scientists are talking about global cooling but like the Maunder (1645 - 1715) and Dalton (1796 - 1830) minimums. Those were mini-ice ages when solar activity just about stopped altogether. There are indications that we are in a solar minimum now or soon will be and that will bring on a cooling period.

In addition global warming is NOT a bad thing. Especially if a CO2 increase could ever be linked to a warming trend. Warmer temperatures and increased CO2 means longer growing seasons with very high crop yields. We would be growing more food then we would know what to do with.

Everything else about global warming or climate change or whatever is just a scare tactic. Every single solution to ending this scam involves the UN amassing global control over everyone's lives down to where we can live, work, vacation and how many people can live with us. That is the UN's Agenda 2030 and the Green New Deal in a nutshell.

you may be confusing this letter:

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/15000-scientists-letter-warn-climate-change/

with this letter:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/letter-to-un-was-not-signed-by-500-experts-on-climate-science-breitbart/

the great majority of scientists agree that the problem is real and urgent. there are natural cycles of climate change, but the evidence indicates that we have accelerated the current cycle through deforestation and increased CO2 emissions. i know it's tempting to believe people who say what you want to hear, and I'm not saying the majority of scientists are always right (because they're frequently not), but this is one time when we can't afford to ignore the warnings.

No, it was the first letter. The 15,000 "scientists". That is the one I was talking about. The 500 scientists denying global warming I didn't remember. And of course the promoters of the propaganda would print an article opposed to the 500 scientists. It is just what they do.

As it turned out the 500 scientists were right because the global warming alarmists are trying to figure out how to spin the fact that the earth isn't cooperating with their "science". A few years ago they called it a "pause" in global warming. I haven't looked to see if they have changed what they are calling the climate that hasn't changed since 1997. Well... technically speaking the climate changes every 3 months. We call it spring, summer, fall and winter. And that is still happening.

AND I STILL HAVE TO SHOVEL SNOW OFF MY DRIVEWAY!!!!!!! You guys promised me that I wouldn't have to two decades ago. When are you going to make that happen????? I'm waiting....

They told me the same thing when I moved south to Georgia. And they were right.

The whole process of global climate change is thought to be normally very slow. The seasons don't evaporate in fifty years when global climate changes (don't throw your shovel away just yet). They're caused by our revolution about the Sun, so they'll be with us forever. However the character of each season will change if the cycle is being accelerated by increasing CO2 levels.

I take the opinion of the climatologists at face value because I don't have time to check everyone else's work and, although I've been a scientist for 40 years, I've still never been asked to support a nefarious hidden agenda for anything.

Clearly I am not a scientist. I am software developer. But I have read enough to make me seriously question not just climate change/global warming but the motivation behind it.

I rarely hear scientists supporting it but I always hear politicians talking about it. And the more radical they are the sooner we are all supposed to burn to a crisp. In fact I see this whole climate change/global warming thing as being fabricated and completely driven by politicians from around the world.

You may not have been asked to support anything nefarious but there are many scientists who work for the UN and other governments around the world who are fully supported by politicians who are demanding that they base their science on a predetermined outcome.

That science is then disseminated around the world and many other scientists just accept it as fact. Some don't.

Those who are the biggest proponents of global warming are also advocating global control over everyone's lives. The UN's Agenda 21 and 2030 and the Green New Deal go to extremes about how we are to live our lives but have little to no effect on the environment. It is all about power and control.

They have fabricated a science to help facilitate their goals. The World Economic Forum is now promoting the Great Reset in which the world's economies will be forced to collapse, capitalism will be destroyed and a global socialist government will emerge where private property rights will be taken from us. The WEF is spinning this as the solution to climate change.

So if the solution is that people are told where to live, where to work when and where they can go on vacation. How many people will live in their house and so on then I have to seriously question the "science" that is being used to support all of this. And as it turns out there are a lot of scientists who have serious problems with global warming. And of course because they do what you are supposed to do in science, question everything, they are being discredited, because the "science is settled".

Do you understand just how ridiculous that sounds to us non-scientists when you say the "science is settled" in reference to the future??? I mean you could if you wanted to say the same thing about fortune tellers. Meteorologists can't predict the weather with any degree of accuracy beyond a week, let alone 100 years.

i have never said "the science is settled" to anyone about anything. any of my students would say immediately that that doesn't sound like me *at all*.

science can't prove theories. all it can do is support or disprove, and even disproof is a difficult task. now, imagine thousands of climatologists around the world, people whose job it is to gather data and analyze it. most of them are average scientists with average skills, it's true. but a few percent of them are very sharp indeed. so the type of conspiracy you're suggesting would have to fool not just the 9-to-5ers, but also the very sharp ones, and every one of them because they all know each other and if even one of them smelled a ruse, they'd let all the others know. so what you're suggesting is very unlikely.

suppose for a moment that the alarm is real and that urgency is required. suppose that global measures are needed, measures that call for sacrifices from everyone. it's in the nature of sacrifice that we will not be eager to hear of them and do our duty to each other and the planet. that's just part of being responsible.

it is common among scientists to say the science is solid, if not "settled", and there will always be nay-sayers among them. i was told when i entered my field of specialization that the "science was settled". so yes, i understand that mentality from personal experience. but i showed that it was not, and it wasn't easy, not because the problem was hard but because everyone really thought it was settled. so there's no need to convince me of that. however, in that same way, i'd need to see hard data and convincing arguments from the nay-sayers before i'd want to challenge the majority of climatologists.