arctic ice increases 60%

Not easy; logical.

 

I don't know how to calculate the "true" cost of containing nuclear waste over hundreds and thousands of years. How do you add that to the cost per kw of nuclear? Do you include inflation over hundreds of years?

 

The same ones banning coal are also creating worthless paper which is the real cause of inflation. Without actual material wealth(i.e. gold, silver or mineral) to back the paper, it is no good.

 

Top Global Emitter China Best on Climate Change, Figueres Says | BLOOMBERG

 

A Massive New Assessment Of Climate Change’s Economic Risks Is Ready For Business | THINKPROGRESS.ORG

 

this is hardly an "independent" group, all of them have preconceive opinions before they have even done any "independent research".

"the environment loses that argument", I did not know the environment any anything to argue about. I suppose this "independent" group will presume to speak for the environment?

Sounds more like the ministry of propaganda. Or perhaps they should call themselves the chicken little committee.

 

The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial | SLATE

Denial is a thin wedge indeed.

 

Warmists and Scientists are not peers.

Scientists observe a phenomenon;
formulate a hypothesis;
run experiments;
formulate a theory from the results;
submit it for testing to other, independent, scientists;
and if it stands up to scrutiny, it becomes a scientific law.
Like Gravity, and Thermodynamics.

Warmists hide the decline, because it's a Mann made scam dreamt up by the Club of Rome (they said so).

The chief globalists don't even call it warming anymore, because there aren't enough stupid people to believe them anymore. They call it climate change, and they scare people with it so they can make everything sustainable. Mainly by robbing everyone and getting ready to kill most of them.

The US is getting a lot of warming at the moment, isn't it? A friend of mine was shoveling warming out of his driveway and slipped over on it. I'm glad it isn't warming here, I cycle to work.

Sadly, the Antarctic junket failed at great expense (to others) because of warm ice, warmier ice even than when Mawson went there. Actually, there's a record amount of warming down there just now.

The rowers had to can their summer jaunt through the NW passage because of all the warming. Pity, because others managed to sail through it no hassles at all, before all the naughty warming started.

Back in the 70's, rabble rousers (or, grant rousers) screamed we were about to enter a new ice age, and told us to start heating the place up or die, and pay them for research. The very same people now claim it's warming, and we need to cool the place. Good thing we blew them off last time, else we'd be in a real warm pickle by now! Maybe we better blow them off again, because they might squeal about freezing again and demand more research money.

There's still a lot of pesky pre-MinTrue newspapers about, showing how HOT the 1930's were, and how many hurricanes hit the coast before The Great Messiah banned them, or sequestered them, or something. They even show that Australia was stinkin' hot and had droughts and floods and bushfires, since....well, since anybody can remember, which used to be much longer than folks today.

It must be really bad warming, because it hasn't warmed anything since 1997 and it's still really warm. Or weather, or something.

I'm glad we've got a warming thread, despite the fact that it doesn't have much to do with boats. In fact, the more clowns babble and agitate and legislate and confiscate because warming, the less chance we peons have of ever enjoying anything to do with boats ouside of history books and dreams. However, I believe you have as much right to blather about warming as I have to blather about warmists, so thank you for this mutual exercise in blathering. It warmed me up, because it's warm outside. Thermometer says minus, but I can fix that.

 

Why even bother posting stuff like this? It doesn't repudiate anything, all it does is showcase the 'deniers' lack of any credible counterclaim.

 

Ah, how uplifting, a scientific sermon. Fact free emotional ranting and raving, based on a fallacy, masquerading as truth.

.

 

hmm so you know as much about econ as about how atmospherics work. Oky dokey or you are just trolling

 

Wrong. that's not how science works. which means you don't understand science very well. As for Thermo - something with equations that have made up fudge factor necessary to make the equations balance is hardly something that fits even your paradigm.

1) science looks at ALL the relevant phenomenon. so if Antarctic ice SURFACE are is increasing but depth is decreasing for a reduction in total volume, you include that

2) if surface salinity is decreasing beause of land based melting, you include that.

then you form a hypothesis


But then you actually form the NULL hypothesis and instead of trying to prove the hypothesis, you work at proving the null hypothesis.

And there is no difference between a "scientific LAW" and a scientific THEORY. both are the same. Newton was wrong about gravity - at the micro-scale. So "Newton's First Law" is actually wrong in the manner that he stated it: A body at rest stays at rest, a body in motion stays in motion

the modern version refines it, just like AGW refines it - and Newton's law has needed at least three refinements:

1) is from special relativity - you now must restrict Newton'1 first law to "from within an inertial frame of reference
2) is from cosmology - newton's 1st law doesn't apply to certain classes of matter and also requires a non-dilated time frame of reference
3) it doesn't apply at small distances where "the weak force" (ie gravity) becomes overcome by other forces. So you now have to restate it in the context of "without force of some sort acting on it"

And yet YOU still cited it as a 'law'.

Silly you

 

Yeah, BB, I've been trolling here a while now.

 

The earth is always changing. Look at the ruins off Dwarka that are now 130 feet below the ocean.