
Climate zealots tell us the end is near. It’s the era of “global BOILING!” says the UN Secretary General.
Climate alarmists say the Arctic will soon be ice-free and cities will be underwater!
But what do the facts say?
In order not to miss the next video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1
The facts say that the climate change fanatics’ catastrophic claims are wrong.
In this video and the next, we’ll debunk 7 myths about climate change.
First up: melting ice, polar bear extinction, and climate change famines.
Transcript:
The Era of Global Warming Has Ended
The era of global warming has ended. The era of global boiling has arrived. Global boiling! The world’s doomed, I’m told. We’re in the sixth mass extinction right now. I only wish someone could have warned us about this apart from every scientist for the last 50 years.
[Applause]
Every scientist agrees. But here’s the thing: they don’t. Well, yes, they agree that the climate’s warming. Climate changes. But scientists don’t agree on the catastrophic claims activists and the media make. The icebergs are melting, the coral reefs are dying, and no one is helping. If we don’t stop the sea level rising, millions of people will be in danger.
In this video, and the next, we’ll look at seven myths about climate change, starting with the great polar ice sheets, which are melting faster than many scientists had anticipated. If global warming continues at the present rate, then the Arctic could already be ice-free by the summer of 2030. That’s Myth 1: The Arctic will soon be ice-free.
We don’t have decades. We hardly have years. These glaciers are on the brink. Some are already past the point of no return. If the entire Greenland ice sheet was lost, sea levels would increase by seven meters. That’s 22 feet. At just six feet, one storm surge could leave London underwater, says this BBC documentary. This could happen this century, they say. But is the ice really melting that fast? No.
As we exit ice ages, you should expect some ice melt, but it’s not happening at nearly the catastrophic pace that they claim. Heartland Research Fellow Linnea Lueken researches environmental threats. She points out that studies on Arctic sea ice don’t show a catastrophic decline. Although ice has melted, it’s really leveled off in recent years.
A lot of the time when you are looking at these very alarming images, it seems like, where’d all the ice go? There’s no ice; it’s all these walruses laying out on a stony beach. They should be on big icebergs. Well, it’s because it’s the summertime, and in the winter, it all comes right back to where it was before. All of it? In recent years, yeah, all of it. For the past 20 years, it’s been largely stable.
And anyway, this is just sea ice, ice in the water, not the total amount of ice in the Arctic. Almost all the Arctic’s ice is on land. And this is the trend line for that ice. You can barely see any decline. Compared to the amount of ice that’s in the Arctic, it is like a grain of sand on the beach. It is so minuscule compared to the amount of ice that’s there that it doesn’t even show up on a trend chart when you plot it.
[Glacier collapsing]
It’s so frustrating. Media keep interviewing “experts” who claim we still see an ice-free Arctic by the middle of the century. Zealots have predicted doom for years. There is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years. Well, those years have long passed. Nobody calls him on it. They absolutely should be calling him on it.
A lot of these kinds of claims are based on what computer models are projecting. And they pick the ones that are alarmist. Oh, absolutely. Well, those are the ones that generate headlines, right?
Here’s another myth that generates headlines: Arctic polar bears are facing near-extinction by the end of the century. Imagine your family disappearing. It’s happening to polar bears right now. That’s Myth 2: Polar bears are going extinct.
[Laughs]
This is the worst one. Polar bears have increased their populations. Environmental groups ignore that increase to sucker you into giving them more of your money. “Don’t give up on polar bears. Don’t give up on threatened species. Your support can help Environmental Defense Fund save the polar bears.” These environmental groups are really being sleazy. Absolutely, because the data is right there. It’s not hard to find out that polar bears are fine. Finding some sick polar bear out there to take a picture of does not indicate the health of the species.
So, polar bears aren’t going extinct. But I’m told we might. The U.N. is warning of mass extinctions and food shortages within this century if global warming continues. Climate change could create a massive global food shortage. That’s Myth 3: Our changing climate is already making it more difficult to produce food.
There is no claim less true. Agricultural output keeps setting record highs. Food production has skyrocketed even amid the modest warming of the past 100+ years. Extra carbon dioxide is good for food production. Well, we inject CO2 into greenhouses for a reason. It’s because it helps to fertilize plants for faster and better growth. And NASA data show that the earth has significantly greened over the past couple of decades. And that, NASA even attributes to increased carbon dioxide fertilization.
As the climate has warmed, the world experienced the biggest drop in hunger and malnutrition ever. But climate activists don’t tell people that. The United Nations says Madagascar is on the verge of experiencing the world’s first climate crisis famine. Climate crisis famine? No! Madagascar’s problems are mostly caused by bad governance, corruption, and cronyism, not climate change.
But whenever there’s a food shortage, or even when prices rise, the media blame climate change. “Food shortages, driven by the effects of climate change. We’re going to see starvation and famine on multiple continents at the same time.” When coffee prices rose, The New York Times blamed “devastation that climate change wrought.” But since the 1990s, global coffee production has increased by 82%. The Times focused on a brief decline in Honduras. But even there, coffee production since 1990 is up more than 200%.
It does not mean that there is a long-term climate issue if you have one bad year. But The New York Times acts like it does. It absolutely does not. And they get egg on their face when you look at the historic data and you see they have been setting records for coffee production. But they never apologize. They never say, “Oh, we got this wrong.” No, and even if they did have a retraction, the damage is already done. The false report already went out.
Alarmist media and environmental groups never apologize. They keep predicting doom. And when they’re wrong, they just move on to the next scare. Like this one: It’s climate change creating infernos larger than ever. That’s just not true.
My next video will cover that and three more myths about our warming planet.
[Swoosh]
Thanks for watching. To make sure you get that next video, subscribe and hit that notification bell.
[Music]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” It’s the era of “global BOILING!” says the UN Secretary General.”
This one is very easily put to bed. It’s alarmism on stilts.
For water to boil at say 50C…
Normal atmospheric pressure ~1013.3mbars and water boils at 100C
For water to boil at 50C… the atmospheric pressure would need to be ~123.3mbars
Next to no atmosphere at all.
Good one, strat.
What I often said to a colleague of mine that would complain about the nonsense uttered by politicians, “The trouble is, Chuck, you make sense.”
Climatistas make Millenarian preachers seem reticent. When the preachers miss a date for the Second Coming, most shut up. Climatistas double down.
I think he means Antarctica.
Ooops!
No, she has it right. According to Perplexity 98.5% of artic ice is on land (3+ kilometers thick on Greenland) 1.5% sea ice.
But she stated ARCTIC ice which is the ocean water region thus she is wrong, she should have been more specific on this.
Greenland is in the Arctic circle (mostly) along with quite a bit of Canada, Russia and some of Scandinavia. The point is that landed ice in the Arctic is about 1000 times thicker than sea ice even though sea ice covers about 10 times more area. But it’s volume, not area, that counts and only melting landed ice increases sea level.
Greenland is mostly within the Arctic circle.
It is very clear that calling it Arctic Ice rather than Arctic Sea Ice, makes a substantial difference.
I’m not sure where the 2030 figure comes from. IPCC AR6 WGI says that the first occurrence of “practically ice-free” during the summer minimum might not occur until around 2050. And regular occurrences might not be common until 2100 and that’s for a high emissions scenario.
Many scientists predicted it would be ice free before 2015, as shown abundantly here,
Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts
LINK
I counted 3 citations from scientists from that link.
My guess is John Strossel is cherry-picking his favorite predictions to build the strawman.
What strawman, you mean snowman? 🤣
I’m talking about the 2030 prediction for first “ice-free” summer in the Arctic. That’s the strawman since it is not the prevailing prediction.
Nature
The first ice-free day in the Arctic Ocean could occur before 2030
LINK
=========
LOL it was easy to find this one surely a few more out there too.
That publication does NOT say that the Arctic will go “ice-free” by 2030.
In fact, that publication says the Arctic may never go “ice-free” and that the most likely RILE timing is about 20-30 years away. It’s just that the authors cannot eliminate the possibility of a RILE happening prior to 2030.
If you’re wanting to find a study that is contrary to the consilience of evidence then you should probably look elsewhere because this study is consistent with the IPCC prediction and inconsistent with Stossel’s 2030 prediction.
https://climatefactchecks.org/the-arctics-tipping-point-first-ice-free-days-by-2030/
https://geographical.co.uk/news/the-arctic-could-be-ice-free-by-2027-new-research-warns
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-arctic-ice-free-decade-scientists.html
and as contrast
https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/05/10/egg-on-their-faces-years-of-failed-arctic-sea-ice-predictions-by-scientists-al-gore-others/
The first ice-free day in the Arctic Ocean could occur before 2030
LOL it says Ice free day, that means 100% free of ice, ice free means NO ice period end of story!
It says the first ice-free day in the Arctic Ocean could occur before 2030 with a non-zero probability. The pertinent line is even highlighted for you with the #:~:text parameter that your web search added to the URL. Heuze and Jahn also say their simulations suggest that it might not happen at all. And if you look at their heat maps of the model predictions that are consistent with the IPCC’s 2050 prediction.
Your own source defines “ice-free” as 1e6 km^2 of extent. That is about 82% free of ice relative to the average minimum from 1979 to 2024.
Yeah, that is called warmest/alarmist math where 82% means ice free which for the rest of the sane world means 100%.
Now I am laughing at you.
Stupid answer… 🤔
Then it should be really easy for you to identify the page number in any one of the IPCC reports which state that the Arctic sea ice will become “ice-free” by 2030.
Why are you so fixed on IPCC only?
There are so many other scientists writing about climate, or do you believe, the IPCC reports are s.th. like biblical prophecies?😁😂
Nowhere in the article is mentioned a relation to the IPCC, that’s only your snowman, or, as you prefer, strawman.
Most people consider the IPCC predictions to reasonably, albeit imperfectly, represent the prevailing consensus of scientific understanding and knowledge. Note that my use of the word “consensus” here is in the context of the consilience of evidence approach meaning that all lines of evidence are considered and that positions and predictions that are most consistent with it are the ones that science supports.
I think you might be confused about what a strawman. A strawman is a type of logical fallacy by which an argument is created by one party, pinned on another, and then attacked to undermine the credibility of the argument that the other party is actually defending.
Since I never argued that Strossel mentioned the IPCC it can’t possibly be a strawman. Furthermore, I would not attack Strossel’s mention of the IPCC even if he had. In fact, it is because Strossel did not mention the IPCC that I feel could be an indication that the 2030 prediction was actually his own and not that of climate science in general as it was insinuated.
I do not believe the IPCC reports are like biblical prophecies. But the first part of your question goes to the heart of my challenge. There are other scientists writing about climate most of which do not think 2030 is a reasonable prediction for the first occurrence of an “ice-free” summer in the Arctic so why is Strossel insinuating otherwise?
I know what a strawman is and means. And about IPCC I better retain my opinion about.
And as I said, there are some more people outside with more or less climate works.
The IPCC is not a scientific reference in my eyes, only for alarmists with no further knowledge.
When you follows some links we all mentioned you realise no IPCC needed.
If not the IPCC then who should have Strossel cited to represent the scientific prediction based on the consilience of evidence approach?
You try to explain me the meaning of strawman and didn’t understand that your mention of the IPCC is just your strawman? 🤣😂😁
Something isn’t clicking here. A strawman is an argument that 1) a person creates and 2) attacks. Not only am I not arguing that Strossel mentioned the IPCC (thus I didn’t create it) I’m also not attacking a mention of it. In fact, I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that he should have mentioned the IPCC and that I support a mention of it because that is an effective way of busting “Myth 1: The Arctic will soon be ice-free.”
And the IPCC stated clearly that it is not possible to predict future climate states, as anyone with reasonable knowledge of physics already knew.
You mention “most people”. You might mean “some ignorant and gullible people”, but misspoke.
Anybody who believes that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, is obviously both ignorant and gullible – in my opinion, of course.
You are too fixated on a government organization the IPCC which is now a Pseudoscience body as they press most of the same garbage from report to report while only a few THOUSAND papers which they ignore that shows very different positions on the issues.
If you don’t think the IPCC reasonably represents the prevailing understanding and knowledge of climate science then pick another source and justify why you think that source best represents the broad consensus and which provides citations for those “few THOUSAND papers” which the IPCC ignores.
There is NO understanding or knowledge about Climate among climate “scientists”. The entire field is a pseudoscience, and therefore fraudulent.
Have you ever known bdgwx to give a good answer?
Prevailing predictions? Do You seriously mean that some people can predict the future better than others?
I’ve always taken the position that predicting what will happen in the future after you are dead is the territory of scoundrels.
Tout sheet sellers never stay around for the race after all.
Clearly.
I’m not sure I would go as far as to call scientists like Newton and Einstein (among others) scoundrels.
ROFLMAO.. so much effort to try to discount “ice-free” prediction as if they never happened..
WHY ???
He’s an idiot ?? Just a falsifiable hypothesis.
Don’t, then. However, if you felt like calling the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann, a scoundrel, I might even agree with you.
Both Newton’s and Einstein’s predictions of what happens in the future are wrong.
But when you get that unified field theory all figured out, be sure to let us know.
Ok. Can you post extraordinary evidence that Earth is not actually an oblate spheroid and that LIGO did not actually detect gravitational waves?
You count poorly as there are 8 shown and there are actually more out there, but this source shows 8 specifically.
Can’t count correctly but gives the truthsayer like a climate scientist, any correlation ? 😁🤣
Yeah, I see that now. I’m not sure what happened when I loaded the page the first time. Please accept my apology for the mistake. I will take measures in the future to prevent careless oversights like this from me. I think reloading the page multiple times is a good learning lesson for me.
My point remains though…8 does not represent the consilience of evidence or the prevailing prediction.
LOL, did you bother to notice that they are scientists who actually work in the Polar fields.
Go look at the names, Serreze ring any bells, what about Wadhams….
LOL now you are moving the goalpost because I nailed you over it, but you ignored the fact they are actual scientists who study the polar regions.
Dr, Orlav Orheim a Norwegian GLACIOLOGIST
Says in 2008 no more summer arctic ice is likely.
Dr. David Barber Geography PHD studies the artic regions.
Says in 2008 no Polar ice in the arctic region that year.
Louis Fortier Director of Arctic net (30 years of research in the far north) says in 2007 Ice will be all gone by 2010-2015.
Mark Serreze who studies the artic region and Jay Zwally says in 2007 polar ice all gone by 2012.
Dr. Maslowski says in 2007 that it will be all gone by 2013.
Dr. Hansen says in 2008 that by year 2018 no more summer ice cover.
Dr. Wadhams made several failed ice predictions starting with 2008, then 2013, then 2015 then 2018….. then 2021.
You should stop now as I am just getting pissed that someone like YOU who appears to have a science degree be so profoundly wrong and stupid in your pathetic handwaving over a group of men who do research in the Arctic, Dr. Wadhams did 40 that is FORTY Arctic Polar expeditions who made a fool of himself because like YOU get so caught up with the stupid AGW bullshit!
Yes you did. And I enthusiastically admit that I miscounted. I do this because I value correctness far more than my ego. Don’t let it be said that I cannot admit my mistakes which are likely numerous.
Let me be perfectly clear. My goal post is the consilience of evidence; not cherry-picked lines of minority evidence.
Did he? I ask because Maslowski was asked about this prediction and said ““It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
No. Seth Borenstein said that.
Did he? I ask because in his published literature he said 2042. [Wadhams 2012]
If I’ve offended you I am genuinely sorry. It is never my intent to piss people off. Next time you’re in St. Louis let me know. We can meet up sometime. I think you’ll find that I’m not as bad many think.
It is clear you didn’t read the link that gave all the statements and background for their erroneous predictions.
I read the link. I also read a lot of other stuff. Like I said…consilience as opposed to cherry picking.
Why are you obsessed with consensus? Physical reality is not determined by people’s opinions.
Because that’s how science works best. And no, I’m not talking about a vote of people.
That’s not what “consensus” means in this context. In the context of science “consensus” is the concept of the convergence of a position that is most consistent with multiple lines of evidence. It was William Whewell in the 1800’s who coined to the term “consilience” to express this concept. Many people including me use “consensus” and “consilience” synonymously when discussing this concept. I personally prefer “consilience” to avoid confusion. But I will adapt if other’s use “consensus”.
Merriam Webster: General agreement. the consensus of opinion. 2. : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.
The word Consensus has nothing in common with preponderance of evidence.
Consensus and consilience both have similar etymology. They both mean “together”. The real difference is that consensus has an implication of belief where consilience has an implication of convergence. In the scientific domain consilience leads to consensus. And like I said I generally prefer to use “consilience”. I’ll sometimes use “consensus”, but when I do I try to contextualize it as “consilience” like what I did above.
And as I tell everyone if you issue is with the words used to express concepts as opposed to the concepts themselves then I’m more than happy to adapt to alternative words as long as they are reasonable. Just keep in mind that this usually leads to confusion for outsiders who are expecting established verbiage.
The BBC quotes Maslowski:
……
So either the BBC is lying or Maslowski is lying.
Which do you think it is?
That’s a good question isn’t it. The same goes for Wadham as well. In both cases they formally signed their names to predictions that are not consistent with what was reported. So did they really make other more aggressive predictions or did they simply get unintentionally misquoted or worse intentionally misrepresented as Maslowski alleges? I don’t know.
I’ll tell you this though. If they really did make those aggressive prediction then I have no problem in rebuking them just like I have rebuked Gore for his predictions and just like I have rebuked Mann for his prediction of Atlantic cyclone activity last year.
It seems Maslowski is being economical with the truth:
Again, to the BBC in 2011, he predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016.
Best guess sums up climate change research.
The only thing on fire is his pants.
What Maslowski said is that 2016 is an extrapolation of a trend. He then went on to say 1) that this figure is uncertain and would provide a lower bound on the timing only and 2) that simple extrapolation sheds little light on the predictability problem anyway. This is a case where the BBC is misrepresenting what Maslowski actually said. I have no idea if it is intentional or not.
Did he? I ask because Maslowski was asked about this prediction and said ““It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Maslowski showed among the figures in his presentation a graph of the decay in ice volume over the period 79-04. A linear trend from 1997 when extrapolated showed zero volume by about 2013. His comment was: “If this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by ~2013!” His use of the exclamation mark indicating incredulity not a prediction.
They actually concluded that “a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean might be realized as early as 2030”.
Exactly. It is the same with his supposed 2016 prediction as well which was merely a trend from historical data and which Maslowksi both warmed to take with a grain of salt and that would be a lower bound on the timing anyway.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski
Do your homework
I’m aware of Masklowski. If you’ll remember he’s the guy that Al Gore erroneously claimed was the source for his own predictions. It turns out that Maslowski was not the source and that Gore made those prediction on his own. In fact, Maslowski has even warned people that they need to be careful with predictions based on either trends and especially modeling stating that “Sea ice is undergoing rapid decline; the skill in multimodel averages is relatively poor, the uncertainty in multimodel ensembles is large, and both are subject to model selection. Simple extrapolation from hindcasts sheds little light on the problem.” which ironically comes from the same publication in which is also erroneously claimed that Maslowski predicted 2016 as the date of the first “ice-free” event in the Artic. [Maslowski et al. 2012]
Anyway.. The Arctic was nearly “Ice-free” in summer for much of the first half of the Holocene.
Nowhere near that now.
Trying to DENY past wacky and wrong predictions from pseudo climate scientists…. is just funny . !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
The article attributes that quote to Serreze. Do you think Strossel’s 2030 prediction is based on the Serreze quote in this article?
My interest there tends literally to zero, Imagine..
But
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free-climate-change/index.html
https://iowaclimate.org/2025/01/28/arctic-ice-free-by-2030/
https://scitechdaily.com/the-arctic-is-melting-faster-than-ever-and-it-could-be-ice-free-by-2027/
https://realclimatescience.com/2025/01/arctic-ice-free-by-2030/#gsc.tab=0
You have a lot of sources now saying Arctie could be ice-free by 2030, as the author said too: COULD
can’t see any prediction by Stossel.
The lead word in climate model “science” 😁😂
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see 3 sources there. [Kim et al. 2023] say around 2040 for a high emission scenario. [Heuze & Jahn 2024] which Sunsettommy posted above and which I discussed here is consistent with the IPCC prediction of 2050. And the 3rd source you repeated twice was from Tony Heller who, in your defense, who did publish 2030. Is 3 sources a lot? Does Tony Heller represent the prevailing prediction using a consilience of evidence approach?
Everybody is writing “could”, not “is”.
I search for a prediction and can’t find any.
2030 may be s.th. like an average estimate, not more, not less, at least nothing that is worth to discuss in that depth.
Yep. The problem is then that people like Strossel misrepresent it as “is”.
Give it up this one is a lost argument you can’t recover from.
I don’t view discussions as battles that are won or lost. I view them as learning opportunities. That goes for me too. Anyway, my hope here is to get you to question where the 2030 prediction came from.
You sure learn slowly even after you have been shown many links talking about by year 2030 and all you do is complain about Stossel using the same 2030 year.
LOL
Talking about 2030 does not mean that Heuze and Jahn think the Arctic will go sea ice free by 2030. Like I keep point out they actually say it is more likely that it will be closer to 2050 than 2030 and even concede that it may never happen at all. And if you think Strossel’s prediction of 2030 is based on Heuze and Jahn’s work then understand that Strossel grossly misrepresented their work.
So you are saying that “main stream climate scientists” (lol) KNEW that Al Gore was putting forward a whole heap of total baloney with his “Inconvenient Truth” video…
… yet let it be force-fed to school children around the world without any corrections.
What a DESPICABLE ACT.
No wonder no-one believes a single thing they say.
Typical behaviour of Alarmists like bgdwx: make a prediction of imminent catastrophe, then trim and dissemble and deny they ever made such a prediction when it turns out to be baloney.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never made a prediction of imminent catastrophe…ever. And if you go through my posts in this very article you’ll see that I’m criticizing Strossel’s 2030 prediction for the first sea ice-free Artic summer aggressively.
In your reply (here) to Graemethecat, you say:
“I’ve never made a prediction of imminent catastrophe…ever. And if you go through my posts in this very article you’ll see that I’m criticizing Strossel’s 2030 prediction for the first sea ice-free Artic summer aggressively.”
Did Strossel himself make that 2030 prediction, bdgwx? I thought he merely cited it without attribution as an example of a ‘myth’, which he was wanting to ‘debunk’! So his position on the matter is the same as yours, as far as I can see: i.e. you both agree that it is untruthful and you are both criticising it aggressively.
What is your beef with him really about?
Yes. We both agree that it is a myth. it is a myth that is easily disputed by citing the IPCC assessment reports. It’s also a myth that all humans are going to die in 12 years, or 50 years, or 100 years, or ever because of climate change. It’s also a myth that all ice on Earth is going to melt out by 2100, or that Earth is going to experience a Venus-like runaway GHE, or a bunch of other alarmist/doomsday fearmongering talking points that aren’t true. Again, these are myths easily debunked by citing the IPCC assessment reports…a reasonable, albeit imperfect, proxy for the consilience of evidence.
“Yes. We both agree that it is a myth…”
Thank you. But?
“…. it is a myth that is easily disputed by citing the IPCC assessment reports…”
I don’t think Strossel said that it isn’t. But is that the essence of your complaint – that he didn’t base his ‘debunking’ of your mutually-perceived ‘myth’ on the officially authorised works of the IPCC? If not, then what, essentially?
“It’s also a myth that all humans are going to die in 12 years, or 50 years, or 100 years, or ever because of climate change. It’s also a myth that all ice on Earth is going to melt out by 2100, or that Earth is going to experience a Venus-like runaway GHE, or a bunch of other alarmist/doomsday fearmongering talking points that aren’t true.”
Indeed. So what?
“Again, these are myths easily debunked by citing the IPCC assessment reports…”
Are they really? I wouldn’t have thought so in view of the vague, ambiguous, presumptuous, unverifiable and even untestable nature of the claims and purported evidence that fill the multitudinous pages of the IPCC’s Assessment Reports. But don’t let my scepticism deter you from trying to do it. Good luck with that project!
“…a reasonable, albeit imperfect, proxy for the consilience of evidence.”
If that is what you believe the IPCC’s Assessment Reports really comprise then I think you cannot have found out yet what real science really is and how fundamentally different it is to what the IPCC calls “gold standard climate science” and purports to be publishing.
Maslowski: “Sea ice is undergoing rapid decline”.
Factually wrong already.
Define “rapid decline” objectively and then we’ll test your hypothesis that sea ice is not undergoing rapid decline.
He was describing the decline in sea ice volume by 40% in about ten years so the statement at the time was ‘factually accurate”. Had it continued at that rate we would have had an sea ice-free summer by about 2013, fortunately the decline slowed down.
It’s difficult therefore to attribute the decline to CO2 levels.
Most of those articles are Arctic Sea Ice. The headline is misleading.
Ok, then it is a fact-free prophecy from a computer game…. utterly meaningless.
Unfortunately the debate is centered on a difference in context. Arctic includes Greenland. Arctic Sea Ice does not include any land based glaciers.
Point if fact. Arctic Sea Ice is floating on water. If it melts, the ocean level remains constant. It takes the glacial melt of Greenland to affect sea level.
I want you to do an experiment. Fill a glass 3/4 full of hot water. Place a funnel in the water with ice chips in the tube and mouth. When the ice chips floating on the water melts does the water level rise in the glass?
The point of this experiment is to falsify the hypothesis that melting ice floating on water cannot be the cause of a rise in the water level. This myth is rooted in remedial high school level thinking of the problem. But when we level up to college level thinking we see that in certain configurations the melt of floating ice can, and does, cause a rise in the water level. In academic literature this is referred to as buttressing.
In that case the ice has ceased to float. What you refer to patronisingly as remedial high school thinking is correct.
It’s not patronizing. It’s a nod to Wired Magazine’s 5 levels of explanation series.
Did you do the experiment?
Do not have to. Arctic Sea ice is not suspended above the water.
Ice floating on liquid water displace the volume of water equivalent to the mass of the ice. The ice melts. The water level remains constant.
Get rid of the funnel. Put the ice cubes directly in the water.
What your simple experiment does is prove glacial melt of Greenland ice will affect ocean water levels.
Look up Archimedes.
Stossel is the one man with the courage to challenge the whole Global Warming scam. Merely by listing the factors that ordinary people use to describe their weather and local climate, factors such as the daily range of temperature, how this changes with the seasons, changes in humidity, possible precipitation, cloudiness, wind direction and strength, etc., and remarking that NONE of these factors rely on the average of thermometer readings. What they have in common is that they all describe how energy, arriving and departing from the Earth, is moved across the face of the Earth to determine what we experience at our locality. Climate Science, properly studied, would concern itself with the interactions of these various forms of energy transport, with little regard for projections that the calculated value of GAT might, or might not, change from 288K to 288,5K in a decade or two when we all experience changes of 10K or more every day.
Once again, CO2 is way more than mere fertilizer, it is every bit as important as water. You don’t refer to water as fertilizer. Life on Earth depends on photosynthesis:
CO2 + H2O and Sun shine = Sugar + Oxygen
Look! Grasshoppers!
Story tip: Elizabeth would never have done this
King Charles wades into politics by sending surprising letter to Ed Miliband https://www.gbnews.com/royal/king-charles-ed-miliband-politics-royal-family-latest
Elizabeth was my Queen. Charles is not my king, he’s a disgrace to the profession.
Go ahead, Charlie, sue me.
Charlieboy also has a bizarre infatuation with radical Islam. He’s despicable.
Why should they apologize for crying wolf? It’s part of the socialist scam plan. Since socialism never works because you eventually run out of other peoples money, the only way to continue the scam is to continue to lie.
ALL scams tell you about a problem that requires immediate payment on your part in order to protect yourself, or horrible things will happen to you.
Yep, story tip from the perennial gold medal winner – the Guardian.
Climate emergency everybody. Run like hell.
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/giant-icebergs-once-drifted-off-090001677.html
Very nice, we need lots more stuff like this. Once the average guy realizes how bad he has been screwed over the CAGW clowns will be running for the hills. People don’t take kindly to be lied to and cheated.
Well, I wouldn’t go quite that far. Thermometers are responding to increased man-made heat.
All’s well, no need to panic.
What’s with the beard? Sheesh. I didn’t even recognize him. Good stuff though. Keep up the good work, John.