[BeesKnee5]

Al Gore is the current high priest of the global warming/climate change hoax.

Certainly looks like the right are obsessed with Gore.

Personally I've been interested in climate change for 40 years and have never read or seen any research from an A Gore.

I admire your efforts to amuse though.
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200
"The Time cover labeled in social posts as coming from 1977 is actually a cover from 2007, with the image altered to change the title from “The Global Warming Survival Guide” to “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age,” Time magazine archives show."

[jimjam]

Greenland has lost 3.8tn tonnes of ice since 1992, and the rate of ice loss has risen from 33bn tonnes a year in the 1990s to 254bn tonnes a year in the past decade. Greenland’s ice contributes directly to sea level rises as it melts because it rests on a large land mass, unlike the floating sea ice that makes up much of the rest of the Arctic ice cap.

About half of the ice loss from Greenland was from melting driven by air surface temperatures, which have risen much faster in the Arctic than the global average, and the rest was from the speeding up of the flow of ice into the sea from glaciers, driven by the warming ocean.

(typical global warming denier retort: "Ice melts all the time. What's the problem.")

The scale and speed of the ice loss surprised the team of 96 polar scientists (Socialists, liberals and elite alarmists all.) behind the findings, published on Tuesday in the journal Nature. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise comprised 26 separate surveys of Greenland from 1992 to 2018, with data from 11 different satellites and comparisons of volume, flow and gravity compiled by experts (suspected communists!) from the UK, Nasa in the US, and the European Space Agency.

Erik Ivins, of the Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, stressed that the findings – the most comprehensive survey yet of the ice sheet over the past few decades – were based on observations, rather than computer modelling. “While computer simulation allows us to make projections from climate change scenarios, the satellite measurements provide prima facie evidence,” he said. (FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!)

Bishop and theologian Hilary of Poitiers predicted the world would end in 365 CE.
Hilary's disciple, the popular saint, cloak-wearer, and hammerer Martin of Tours predicted the end would be around 400 CE. These things did not happen, therefore, Global Warming is a hoax perpetuated by liberals and socialists. .

[Hindsite]

Gore gets slammed over false global warming prediction
Jun 6, 2017

5 Signs Dire Global Warming Predictions Are Wrong
Nov 16, 2017

[b]Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts
Sep 17, 2012

[jimjam]

why have Republicans become the party of climate doom? Money is an important part of the answer: In the current cycle Republicans have received 97 percent of political contributions from the coal industry, 88 percent from oil and gas. And this doesn’t even count the wing nut welfare offered by institutions supported by the Koch brothers and other fossil-fuel moguls.

Well, I guess this explains why Obese Donald and his ass lickers are not even permitted to utter the words "global warming".

[BeesKnee5]

Gore gets slammed over false global warming prediction
Jun 6, 2017

5 Signs Dire Global Warming Predictions Are Wrong
Nov 16, 2017

[b]Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts
Sep 17, 2012

Why are you using YouTube videos as evidence?

It's just a source of propaganda to feed whatever bias you have.

Maybe you should've an included flat earth and chem trail videos

[Steve_American]

We have gone on to the next page.

So far no ACC denier has responded to my posts on the 1st page back.

There I pointed out that a recent study has found that 14 of the 17 old climate change models going back to the 80s were all very accurate in their prediction of ACC and the global temps it would cause IF they fed in the actual amount of CO2, CH4, etc. added to the air.
. . . I pointed out that this means that those models have been right in their predictions for 30 or so years now. and that this means, that they are going to be very accurate in their predictions of how ACC will play out in the future. That is until some tipping point is triggered, because then our current predictions of how much CO2 & CH4 will be totally wrong.

I asked the deniers to come up with a reply. So far they have not found one.

So, Lurkers, you should, IMHO, reject them and get on the ACC bandwagon.

[jimjam]

Up and down the mid-Atlantic coast, sea levels are rising rapidly, creating stands of dead trees — often bleached, sometimes blackened — known as ghost forests.

The water is gaining as much as 5 millimeters per year in some places, well above the global average of 3.1 millimeters, driven by profound environmental shifts that include climate change.

Increasingly powerful storms, a consequence of a warming world, push seawater inland. More intense dry spells reduce freshwater flowing outward. Adding to the peril, in some places the land is naturally sinking.

All of this allows seawater to claim new territory, killing trees from the roots up.

[Hindsite]

I asked the deniers to come up with a reply. So far they have not found one.

So, Lurkers, you should, IMHO, reject them and get on the ACC bandwagon.

I am not getting on the AOC bandwagon. I am going to stick with the Trump of God (TOG) bandwagon.
HalleluYah

[jimjam]

The approach to downplay the significance of climate change was copied from tobacco lobbyists; in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. ""Doubt is our product," boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come." In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.

Several large corporations within the fossil fuel industry provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about the trustworthiness of climate science. ExxonMobil and the Koch family foundations have been identified as especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism. The bankruptcy of the coal company Cloud Peak Energy revealed it funded the Institute for Energy Research, a climate denial think tank, as well as several other policy influencers

[jimjam]

Politics is polarizing our families and communities. There’s a nationwide epidemic of anxiety and loneliness and a whir of existential dread, acutely among young people, about our warming planet.

[jimjam]

It doesn’t surprise me that Trump doesn’t think about the consequences of some of his policies. He is not an introspective person. It saddens me that none of the rest of his administration cares enough to implement a better solution to what they perceived as a problem. If businesses were sometimes being unfairly targeted by a environmental protection law, then adjust it. Almost eliminating the law’s usefulness is a ridiculous swing to the other extreme.This is one of the reasons why the Trump administration is so vilified by people who care about our planet. Their ham handed, careless behavior is nauseating.

[jimjam]

Recent research shows the whole planet appears to be contaminated with microplastic pollution. Scientists have found the particles everywhere they look, from Arctic snow and mountain soils, to many rivers and the deepest oceans. Other work indicates particles can be blown across the world.

[Truth To Power]

Why are you using YouTube videos as evidence?

Why can't you refute any of it?

It's just a source of propaganda to feed whatever bias you have.

Translation: unlike the corporate media, Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. it hasn't yet been completely taken over by hysterical anti-fossil-fuel propaganda.

Maybe you should've an included flat earth and chem trail videos

No, because those videos can be refuted.

[BeesKnee5]

Why can't you refute any of it?

Translation: unlike the corporate media, Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. it hasn't yet been completely taken over by hysterical anti-fossil-fuel propaganda.

No, because those videos can be refuted.

Lol!!
It can all be refuted, I could even highlight a YouTube video to refute it. Hell, I could even create and post on YouTube to claim I have evidence to the contrary.

Wake up man, they are all opinion pieces by people earning a few pennies from fools like you.

That's why I don't take them seriously.

[Truth To Power]

It can all be refuted,

Then why hasn't it been?

I could even highlight a YouTube video to refute it.

Then why don't you?

Hell, I could even create and post on YouTube to claim I have evidence to the contrary.

Right: you could CLAIM to have evidence to the contrary. But you wouldn't actually have any.

Wake up man, they are all opinion pieces by people earning a few pennies from fools like you.

That's why I don't take them seriously.

So as I said, you can't refute any of them.

[BeesKnee5]

Then why hasn't it been?

Then why don't you?

Right: you could CLAIM to have evidence to the contrary. But you wouldn't actually have any.

So as I said, you can't refute any of them.

And you think the you tube video contains genuine research not taken out of context.

You really are off your tree.

Take your pick
https://m.youtube.com/results?search_qu ... al+warming

When your done you can come back with your critique of second hand information

[Truth To Power]

And you think the you tube video contains genuine research not taken out of context.

I know you have presented no evidence to the contrary.

https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=Global+warming

And....?

When your done you can come back with your critique of second hand information

So you agree you cannot refute the video I linked to. Good.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

You are confused.

@BeesKnee5 was discussing the videos that @Hindsite posted. You incorrectly think that BeesKnee5 was referring to a video that you posted.

[BeesKnee5]

@Truth To Power

You are confused.

@BeesKnee5 was discussing the videos that @Hindsite posted. You incorrectly think that BeesKnee5 was referring to a video that you posted.

Why am I not surprised that he can't follow a conversation after showing an inability to go beyond a headline or even read a chart.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

You are confused.

@BeesKnee5 was discussing the videos that @Hindsite posted. You incorrectly think that BeesKnee5 was referring to a video that you posted.

?? Talk about confused. He quoted and responded to MY POST, not Hindsite's.