Iceland's glaciers lose 750 km2 in 20 years

[Seldom Bucket]

Iceland's glaciers have lost around 750 square kilometers (290 square miles), or seven percent of their surface, since the turn of the millennium due to global warming, a study published on Monday showed.


The glaciers, which cover more than 10 percent of the country's land mass, shrank in 2019 to 10,400 square kilometers, the study in the Icelandic scientific journal Jokull said.


Since 1890, the land covered by glaciers has decreased by almost 2,200 square kilometers, or 18 percent.

Iceland's glaciers lose 750 km2 in 20 years

Iceland's glaciers have lost around 750 square kilometres (290 square miles), or seven percent of their surface, since the turn of the millennium due to global warming, a study published on Monday showed.

phys.org

 

[[)roi(]]

Climate alarmists (aka bullshitters) always selectively present a dataset to support their predetermined conclusions, or they manipulate historical data (here's looking at you NASA) to make current datasets look worse than they are. As with anything in life... context always matters.

Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax: Larry Bell: 9781608320837: Amazon.com: Books

Buy Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

Fact:
Every single prediction made by bullshitters like Al Gore were wrong....
FFS climatologists can't even get short term weather predictions correct yet we are to believe they can now accurately predict what weather patterns will be like over the next 100+ years.

This has always been political propaganda used by scaly politicians, the rich and the powerful to secure power and drive their rotten global ambitions.

If this was real science then nobody who questions the validity of these claims would ever be called a denier. The long standing principle of scientific reasoning after-all mandates utter skepticism, yet any scientist who questions this bullshit is labelled a denier and their credibility is attacked, even worse they lose their jobs. i.e. tow the line, or we'll destroy you -- that is not how science works... but that is most certainly how politics works.

Also science has never been a matter of consensus i.e. let's take a vote on whether the earth is flat. Nope, a hypothesis is developed, it is then tested to see if the hypothesis could be correct... if it appears to be correct, it is then exposed to the scientific community for rigorous and thoroughly skeptical examination -- nobody stands up and ask for a vote, or sends out a questionnaire to reach a consensus.

No, either the hypothesis can be independently verified by anyone, or its bullshit -- that's how science works, ... if the hypothesis is sound, then it can be verified independently, and we certainly don't label everyone who calls our hypothesis bullshit a denier... but politicians needing a crisis, most certainly do.

This btw is also not the first attempt to use consensus and politics to attack scientific positions, for example:
Einstein is noted as saying.... when 100 German physicists claimed his theory of relativity is wrong in a book they entitled: 100 Authors Against Einstein.

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
-- Einstein

Copernicus faced even worse political pressures and threats when he challenged the notion that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.
...had science worked like the climate bullshit of today -- then we'd all still be taught that the earth was flat, because the consensus (of politicians) decided that's how it had to be.

 

[Johnatan56]

Climate alarmists (aka bullshitters) always selectively present a dataset to support their predetermined conclusions, or they manipulate historical data (here's looking at you NASA) to make current datasets look worse than they are. As with anything in life... context always matters.

Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax: Larry Bell: 9781608320837: Amazon.com: Books

Buy Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

Fact:
Every single prediction made by bullshitters like Al Gore were wrong....
FFS climatologists can't even get short term weather predictions correct yet we are to believe they can now accurately predict what weather patterns will be like over the next 100+ years.

This has always been political propaganda used by scaly politicians, the rich and the powerful to secure power and drive their rotten global ambitions.

If this was real science then nobody who questions the validity of these claims would ever be called a denier. The long standing principle of scientific reasoning after-all mandates utter skepticism, yet any scientist who questions this bullshit is labelled a denier and their credibility is attacked, even worse they lose their jobs. i.e. tow the line, or we'll destroy you -- that is not how science works... but that is most certainly how politics works.

Also science has never been a matter of consensus i.e. let's take a vote on whether the earth is flat. Nope, a hypothesis is developed, it is then tested to see if the hypothesis could be correct... if it appears to be correct, it is then exposed to the scientific community for rigorous and thoroughly skeptical examination -- nobody stands up and ask for a vote, or sends out a questionnaire to reach a consensus.

No, either the hypothesis can be independently verified by anyone, or its bullshit -- that's how science works, ... if the hypothesis is sound, then it can be verified independently, and we certainly don't label everyone who calls our hypothesis bullshit a denier... but politicians needing a crisis, most certainly do.

This btw is also not the first attempt to use consensus and politics to attack scientific positions, for example:
Einstein is noted as saying.... when 100 German physicists claimed his theory of relativity is wrong in a book they entitled: 100 Authors Against Einstein.


Copernicus faced even worse political pressures and threats when he challenged the notion that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.
...had science worked like the climate bullshit of today -- then we'd all still be taught that the earth was flat, because the consensus (of politicians) decided that's how it had to be.

Man your post is charged, and then you go and also mention the hundred authors against Einstein.

First, there is a difference between measuring a trend and measuring an exact future prediction, plus weather predictions are generally quite good.

Secondly, a vast majority of the scientific community agree with it, and it's still constantly being tested and has been tested for a good 2/3 decades at least, new data keeps emerging that keeps making the data more concrete.

This leads to the Einstein reference, the 100 authors "against" him were people that were not against his theory, but against the way he measured and proved it, over the next decades after Einstein released his paper, there were a lot of other papers attempting to disprove it and due to it it led to better versions/proofs for it.

If you bring in a wholly new idea, people are going to question it, and that is important and part of the scientific community, you can't just accept something.

And the fact that climate change still hasn't been disproven after it has so much money thrown at it (e.g. oil companies would love it disproven), it makes a strong argument that it is a real phenomenon.

EDIT:
Did you also notice that your argument of 100 authors against Einstein is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make? Climate change was introduced, 100 authors against Einstein tried to disprove something new.
/EDIT

The question is more one of whether the changes we are doing now to "combat" it are good/working, and imho they are generally good as e.g. solar and wind don't create as much smog, reuse/recycle (if actually done) cause less landfills, etc. so I'm quite happy with it.

I'm still on the fence with electric cars as battery recharging seems to be a bit of an issue, but will see how that goes, right now EU is spearheading that: https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/eu-lithium-ion-battery-recycling-idtechex/ (as they do with most things green).

 

[[)roi(]]

1. Man your post is charged, and then you go and also mention the hundred authors against Einstein.

First, there is a difference between measuring a trend and measuring an exact future prediction, plus weather predictions are generally quite good.

Secondly, a vast majority of the scientific community agree with it, and it's still constantly being tested and has been tested for a good 2/3 decades at least, new data keeps emerging that keeps making the data more concrete.

This leads to the Einstein reference, the 100 authors "against" him were people that were not against his theory, but against the way he measured and proved it, over the next decades after Einstein released his paper, there were a lot of other papers attempting to disprove it and due to it it led to better versions/proofs for it.

If you bring in a wholly new idea, people are going to question it, and that is important and part of the scientific community, you can't just accept something.

And the fact that climate change still hasn't been disproven after it has so much money thrown at it (e.g. oil companies would love it disproven), it makes a strong argument that it is a real phenomenon.

EDIT:
Did you also notice that your argument of 100 authors against Einstein is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make? Climate change was introduced, 100 authors against Einstein tried to disprove something new.
/EDIT

The question is more one of whether the changes we are doing now to "combat" it are good/working, and imho they are generally good as e.g. solar and wind don't create as much smog, reuse/recycle (if actually done) cause less landfills, etc. so I'm quite happy with it.

I'm still on the fence with electric cars as battery recharging seems to be a bit of an issue, but will see how that goes, right now EU is spearheading that: https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/eu-lithium-ion-battery-recycling-idtechex/ (as they do with most things green).

Clearly you miss the point, and no the Einstein example is not irrelevant; because it demonstrates that a consensus is not how science works, and as for disproving the climate bullshit -- it has been done many times over.... its the reason why corrupt politicians came up with the term "science denier", because the scientific skepticism held up, and its why the bullshit scientists keep manipulating the data, and selectively presently the datasets.

If you're right and I'm wrong... then let's do a simple exercise:

1. Take Al Gore's prediction from the past (it's detailed in his Nobel prize winning books) and demonstrate that he was correct.
   • Should be simple as most of the events have already past.
2. Accurately predict the weather for a city during the summer months; shall we say 3 months into the future. This should be 100% precise, because if you think the models can predict weather over a 100 years into the future, then 3 months should be easy.
   • If that seems to too difficult, then maybe just try to predict the coldest temperature e.g. Sandton in Johannesburg will experience this winter and on which day.

 

[[)roi(]]

I'm still on the fence with electric cars as battery recharging seems to be a bit of an issue, but will see how that goes, right now EU is spearheading that: https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/eu-lithium-ion-battery-recycling-idtechex/ (as they do with most things green).

As for EVs, solar panels and wind turbines. Honestly those combined produce more toxic pollution than the alternative fossil fuel vehicles; because again if one selectively presents the data, then EVs look "better"; even though they remain such a poor substitute for fossil fuel cars, and we haven't even touched on the price... FFS who can afford that, and that doesn't touch on the excessively high maintenance cost e.g. batteries

If these green nutters were however pro nuclear instead of the bullshit solar and wind stuff, then I'd stand in lock step with at least 1 thing with them...

...but NO these same nutters are opposed to anything nuclear; even the inherently safe thorium salt reactor versions... because their favorite politician told them not to like it, and their favourite propaganda news channels agreed... because its woo hooo dangerous, and toxic ... and then same politicians tell them to immediately avert their eyes when anything is presented about the toxicity of the end to end mining, refining, manufacturing, recycling process for EVs, solar and wind.

Oh and ignore those dead birds and bats around all the wind turbines... because that's what the politicians told you is ok... but whoo hoo lets panic about bullshit data on polar bear numbers.

 

[Johnatan56]

Clearly you miss the point, and no the Einstein example is not irrelevant; because it demonstrates that a consensus is not how science works, and as for disproving the climate bullshit -- it has been done many times over.... its the reason why corrupt politicians came up with the term "science denier", because the scientific skepticism held up, and its why the bullshit scientists keep manipulating the data, and selectively presently the datasets.

The term science denier is because the vast majority agree that climate change exists and there is yet anyone who has managed to disprove it. Don't care whatever the rest of the argument is on that side, I don't use the term as I don't bother arguing that with anyone at this point, just very disappointed that someone as intelligent as you would fall to this.

If you're right and I'm wrong... then let's do a simple exercise:

1. Take Al Gore's prediction from the past (it's detailed in his Nobel prize winning books) and demonstrate that he was correct.
   • Should be simple as most of the events have already past.

1. So you're quoting a Vice President rather than a scientific paper.

Gore attributed the prediction to researchers, but it appears he misstated the findings.

PolitiFact - Fact-checking claims that Al Gore said all Arctic ice will be gone in the summer by 2013

Former Vice President Al Gore has been a vocal advocate for policies to reduce global warming, dedicating much of his po

www.politifact.com

It's been fact checked so often already.

2. Accurately predict the weather for a city during the summer months; shall we say 3 months into the future. This should be 100% precise, because if you think the models can predict weather over a 100 years into the future, then 3 months should be easy.

• If that seems to too difficult, then maybe just try to predict the coldest temperature e.g. Sandton in Johannesburg will experience this winter and on which day.

That's very, very stupid reasoning.
Based on the information we have on wood in all Apartments within a city, accurately predict within a month how long the wood would last in a specific Apartment.
You can give an estimate based on historic trend for all the information you have, but completely accurately predicting it? No.
Dumb comparison.

As for EVs, solar panels and wind turbines. Honestly those combined produce more toxic pollution than the alternative fossil fuel vehicles;

Has been disproven. A vast majority of both is recyclable, current issue is cost of doing so, and that will be sorted soon enough, be it in terms of tariffs for new ones that cover that cost or they actually manage to recycle them for cheaper (most modern wind turbines and solar panels in the world are only set to start going end of life post 2026 or so, that's when we will see how the issue is actually handled).

because again if one selectively presents the data, then EVs look "better";

No, they are better pretty much in every way besides the actual battery because the information and infrastructure after destruction about it is lacking, it's just how it is.

even though they remain such a poor substitute for fossil fuel cars, and we haven't even touched on the price... FFS who can afford that, and that doesn't touch on the excessively high maintenance cost e.g. batteries

The price of electric cars is coming way down, and I would bet in the next 5 years that the cheapest cars would be electric, it just needs to go over the hurdle of paying off research/being a premium thing to going truly mainstream, and it's already started that with the Ford F150. Would expect it to start taking a majority of yearly sales by 2025 tbh due to US mileage limits, and EU emissions laws, and noting again that the average price of electric will drop very fast over the next 5 years since it's starting to go from top end stuff to mid range.

 

[[)roi(]]

The term science denier is because the vast majority agree that climate change exists and there is yet anyone who has managed to disprove it. Don't care whatever the rest of the argument is on that side, I don't use the term as I don't bother arguing that with anyone at this point, just very disappointed that someone as intelligent as you would fall to this.

1. So you're quoting a Vice President rather than a scientific paper.

It's been fact checked so often already.

That's very, very stupid reasoning.
Based on the information we have on wood in all Apartments within a city, accurately predict within a month how long the wood would last in a specific Apartment.
You can give an estimate based on historic trend for all the information you have, but completely accurately predicting it? No.
Dumb comparison.

Has been disproven. A vast majority of both is recyclable, current issue is cost of doing so, and that will be sorted soon enough, be it in terms of tariffs for new ones that cover that cost or they actually manage to recycle them for cheaper (most modern wind turbines and solar panels in the world are only set to start going end of life post 2026 or so, that's when we will see how the issue is actually handled).

No, they are better pretty much in every way besides the actual battery because the information and infrastructure after destruction about it is lacking, it's just how it is.

The price of electric cars is coming way down, and I would bet in the next 5 years that the cheapest cars would be electric, it just needs to go over the hurdle of paying off research/being a premium thing to going truly mainstream, and it's already started that with the Ford F150. Would expect it to start taking a majority of yearly sales by 2025 tbh due to US mileage limits, and EU emissions laws, and noting again that the average price of electric will drop very fast over the next 5 years since it's starting to go from top end stuff to mid range.

While you're onto the "you didn't provide a scientific paper" bullshit counter argument... can you please provide the scientific paper that justifies overriding the long standing doctrine of scientific reasoning -- i.e. the principle that mandates absolute skepticism, and is diametrically opposed to group think and/or its political equivalent -- a consensus.

Al Gore was one of the first arseholes to push this bullshit (if we ignore the arsehole at NASA that started it) -- if he is now (in your opinion) so irrelevant then pray tell why would they have given him a Nobel prize then?
Just stop trying to avoid the obvious... global cooling / global warming / global climate bullshitters keep flip flopping to push their bullshit.

If everything was so obvious and resolute -- then the bullshitters wouldn't have to keep changing / adjusting data and sidelining people like Al Gore to push their bullshit.

Sorry but you're talking though your arse when it comes to batteries and EVs -- take away subsidies and these electric toys are fucking expense to say the least. Only America and Europe are able to subsidise these expensive toys (and only if they over tax the populace)...
... how about you wake me up when the ANC and the rest of the world including India and China find a way to financially subsidise EV tech for the general usage by the populace in place of fossil fuels and nuclear. P.s. you'd be better off trying to get a pebble pregnant.

Using authoritarian style governance as proof of anything is laughable (re EU)... if the tech could stand on its own two feet then no authoritarian government intervention would be required -- the general populace would drive the change as it does with fossil fuels.
Reality it's nothing of the sort -- you're just regurgitating the bullshit propaganda they fed to you.

Funny how you just so liberally skipped over Copernicus -- where it was big government fighting against reality to maintain their flat earth and earth as the centre of the universe beliefs.

Also how you just liberally skipped over the reality of the toxicity of EV tech incl. the massacre of birds & bats, the shite and overly expensive maintenance vs fossil fuels and nuclear -- and we didn't even touch on the EV inability to supplement any base load electricity provision, whereas that very simple for fossil fuels and nuclear.

Anytime someone uses the term science denier and science consensus... it's proof that what will follow is utter bullshit, and then the overwhelming presence of politicians pushing garbage this is also proof alone. If the science was so good and so resolute then nobody would ever have to be labelled a denier or cancelled -- because the science would be so resolute that nobody would ever question it, because it would be easy to verify over and over again. There is nothing about this bullshit that is anything like that.

Picking a molecule like CO2 as the primary cause was the first mistake... had they blamed the sun, we'd be on the same page... but the sun is just the sun (out of our control)...and hence corrupt politicians, the rich and power would not be able to use it to drive their globalist policies -- its why they had to add the terms denier and consensus to the mix... i.e. how to undermine age old scientific doctrine -- which embraced wholly skepticism because it was necessary to separate real science from politically driven bullshit.

 

[Seldom Bucket]

I see some great responses here, will read up when I can. I have 62 A4 pages of new cybercrime bill to read and memo to send out......

 

[Johnatan56]

While you're onto the "you didn't provide a scientific paper" bullshit counter argument... can you please provide the scientific paper that justifies overriding the long standing doctrine of scientific reasoning -- i.e. the principle that mandates absolute skepticism, and is diametrically opposed to group think and/or its political equivalent -- a consensus.

Wtf are you talking about, that's you getting emotional, and is a red herring.

Al Gore was one of the first arseholes to push this bullshit (if we ignore the arsehole at NASA that started it) -- if he is now (in your opinion) so irrelevant then pray tell why would they have given him a Nobel prize then?
Just stop trying to avoid the obvious... global cooling / global warming / global climate bullshitters keep flip flopping to push their bullshit.

He was given it in conjunction with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that doesn't mean he was actually smart, just that he's a figurehead.

If everything was so obvious and resolute -- then the bullshitters wouldn't have to keep changing / adjusting data and sidelining people like Al Gore to push their bullshit.

So because you're trying to gather a result from a huge, ever changing amount of data, which is still actively changing, all scientists that have proven climate change are bullshitters. That's quite a logical fallacy there again.

You again didn't answer my question in regards to Apartment's wood.

Sorry but you're talking though your arse when it comes to batteries and EVs -- take away subsidies and these electric toys are fucking expense to say the least. Only America and Europe are able to subsidise these expensive toys (and only if they over tax the populace)...
... how about you wake me up when the ANC and the rest of the world including India and China find a way to financially subsidise EV tech for the general usage by the populace in place of fossil fuels and nuclear. P.s. you'd be better off trying to get a pebble pregnant.

You know Tesla doesn't have subsidies since end of 2019 and GM since 2020, right? And both had caps at 600k cars each, they both sold more than that. And that's including still investing in the tech.
Then gas you need to take into account the subsidy in terms of healthcare due to smog, etc.
You also completely missed the fact that I didn't say electric cars are cheap yet, that they are becoming cheap, those are two wholly different things. You're being dense.
Note that any emerging tech is expensive, do remember that most of the nuclear research funding was the American military, so you can't easily get numbers there, and solar/wind have been competitive for a few years now without subsidies, and are set to decline even further in price. Check the Lazard report, it has the unsubsidized cost as well.

Using authoritarian style governance as proof of anything is laughable (re EU)... if the tech could stand on its own two feet then no authoritarian government intervention would be required -- the general populace would drive the change as it does with fossil fuels.
Reality it's nothing of the sort -- you're just regurgitating the bullshit propaganda they fed to you.

Right, totally, and I also believe that government is hiding aliens in Area 51.
I don't know of any tech that has not been subsidized by governments, be it via war effort/direct employ, funding universities or offering subsidies to businesses. Rest of the world benefits after that.

Funny how you just so liberally skipped over Copernicus -- where it was big government fighting against reality to maintain their flat earth and earth as the centre of the universe beliefs.

You know that was medieval, right? The entire thing is due to the church, and the church pretty much ran the place. You're arguing 1550's to me, I didn't think you'd actually want me to reply to that.

Also how you just liberally skipped over the reality of the toxicity of EV tech incl. the massacre of birds & bats, the shite and overly expensive maintenance vs fossil fuels and nuclear -- and we didn't even touch on the EV inability to supplement any base load electricity provision, whereas that very simple for fossil fuels and nuclear.

I'm not going to link to a scientific paper for the birds stuff:

The Realities of Bird and Bat Deaths by Wind Turbines | REVE News of the wind sector in Spain and in the world

www.evwind.es

The EV you need to prove the toxicity first, and I did not gloss over it, I mentioned the EU doing recycling programs etc. in regards to e-waste.
You'll need to prove the overly expensive maintenance, again, Lazard report states otherwise.
Base load is a myth, you want a mix, e.g. pair OCGT with wind turbines, you can predict wind well enough for that and it will reduce cost and emissions compared to an e.g. 24/7 coal. Then especially with EV that argument goes away as e.g. Ford F150 is 115kWh that can be fed back into houses, you can use that during night/peak and charge when excess power, the term for it if you want to look for scientific papers is "smart grid".
My prof is actually one of the leading publishers in South Africa for it, indirectly that would point out who I am.

Anytime someone uses the term science denier and science consensus... it's proof that what will follow is utter bullshit, and then the overwhelming presence of politicians pushing garbage this is also proof alone. If the science was so good and so resolute then nobody would ever have to be labelled a denier or cancelled -- because the science would be so resolute that nobody would ever question it, because it would be easy to verify over and over again. There is nothing about this bullshit that is anything like that.

What I am saying is that you're ignoring the litany of proof and scientific consensus, then arguing that that must be wrong based on 1500's stuff and cases where Einstein's papers were argued against due to mistakes he made but everyone improved the proof so it's still generally accepted, which is generally how the scientific community works (throw a hypothesis out, prove it, then everyone else disprove it). Absolutely great.

Picking a molecule like CO2 as the primary cause was the first mistake... had they blamed the sun, we'd be on the same page... but the sun is just the sun (out of our control)...and hence corrupt politicians, the rich and power would not be able to use it to drive their globalist policies -- its why they had to add the terms denier and consensus to the mix... i.e. how to undermine age old scientific doctrine -- which embraced wholly skepticism because it was necessary to separate real science from politically driven bullshit.

You know it's not just CO2, right? It's noted as "an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases produces a positive climate forcing, or warming effect", not CO2 alone, just that CO2 is one of the most extreme ones (and NO3 is also one that is often pointed at, that causes acid rain).

Based on reading your discussion on this, you come off as either completely ignorant, or someone who has chosen a side and will not listen to reason and will attack anyone who says otherwise.

 

[[)roi(]]

Wtf are you talking about, that's you getting emotional, and is a red herring.

You know that was medieval, right? The entire thing is due to the church, and the church pretty much ran the place. You're arguing 1550's to me, I didn't think you'd actually want me to reply to that.

Scientific reasoning is a red herring, are you choosing to sound stupid? Nope it's there for a purpose, so politicians can't run rough shod over science and declare by consensus that the earth is flat -- remember Copernicus struggled with a similar type of scumbags who for similar political and religious reasons didn't want to accept anything that disproved their consensus view of the universe.

The eco nutters today are no different than the scumbags who gave Copernicus a hard time -- today they label real science that embraces scientific skepticism, applies objective reasoning, conducts hypothesis testing, etc... as DENIERS, and then they go all out to cancel these scientific scholars:

• getting them kicked out of universities and depriving them of income
• revoking their research grants
• etc.

Now tell me again, how that is so different from Copernicus? The only thing you got right is calling it medieval, yes its fucking medieval alright.

We're supposed to be an liberal society where science is never governed by decree, or consensus, etc. Scientific hypothesis are either valid or not... the fact that so much effort is expended to cancel people and label them as deniers -- proves that this is not real science, it never has been real science, because that stuff does not need cancel culture or bullshit labels like DENIER:

• this is 100% political.

I'm not going to link to a scientific paper for the birds stuff:

What a load of bullshit; again its another selective presentation of data; such a typical moronic response.
Do you just assume that the type of bird or bat species is irrelevant, and that no weight should be given to endangered status of certain species of birds and bats?

For example in the USA, there is a huge penalty for killing golden and bald eagles, yet the climate nutters reason its ok if a turbine kills an eagle, because cats statistically kill more birds than turbines. FFS even a moron can tell the difference between a sparrow and an eagle.

Ps. These are not sparrows.

Golden Eagles Face Extinction – Are Wind Farms the Main Cause?

GOLDEN EAGLES’ NUMBERS PLUMMET, NEW STUDIES REVEAL “Wind farms are the main cause. The issuing of license to kill will accelerate the decline toward extinction.” —Save the Eagles Internationa…

obrag.org

...and neither is this a sparrow...

Vultures killed by turbines in Spain

...or this...

Great bustard killed by turbine in Spain.

...or this...

White-tailed eagle killed by turbine in Norway.

WIND FARMS v. WILDLIFE – The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy. « Raptor Politics

raptorpolitics.org.uk

So because you're trying to gather a result from a huge, ever changing amount of data, which is still actively changing, all scientists that have proven climate change are bullshitters. That's quite a logical fallacy there again.

Wrong... historical temperature record does not fucking change... unless you're telling me these eco nutters have developed a time machine and are going back to somehow fix stuff. Nope... manipulation of historical records is being done solely to justify their bullshit; it's all done to hide the 1920s warm period, which had huge parts of the artic shelf breaking off, far greater than today, similarly glaciers, etc. -- why you ask?
...because when that unaltered data is presented on a graph with recent records, there is no hockey stick warming, and no direct correlation between warming and CO2. Now go ahead and quote their bullshit excuse for why they are manipulating historical records... please don't waste my time or yours.

Satellite temperatures measurements also disprove that bullshit hypothesis, and surely you've seen the reports from Nasa that the world has become significantly greener over the last century -- which any old farmer could tell you is because of CO2; the plants love the stuff, and more so it makes them far more drought resistant i.e. they need less water.

How pray tell is a greener planet a bad thing?

The EV you need to prove the toxicity first, and I did not gloss over it, I mentioned the EU doing recycling programs etc. in regards to e-waste.

You really need to do your homework... and also don't just ignore that I said the entire cycle from mining to refining and so on. It's way more toxic than fossil fuels could ever be... but the eco nutters and politicians gloss over this, because its inconvenient, just like birds.

Base load is a myth, you want a mix, e.g. pair OCGT with wind turbines, you can predict wind well enough for that and it will reduce cost and emissions compared to an e.g. 24/7 coal.

Name 1 country whose entire base load is solely derived from wind and solar, and more so which of those sustains base load overnight with that.
Germany for example has been busy with this for a long time and they failed... or did you miss that fact?

Germany’s ‘Green’ Energy Failure: Germany Turns Back To Coal And Natural Gas As millions Of Its Solar Panels Are Blanketed In Snow And Ice | Tech News | Startups News - WorldNewsEra

Energiewende is a German word for ‘”energy transition.” Energiewende is a policy launched by the German government in 2000 to decarbonize its primary energy

worldnewsera.com

My prof is actually one of the leading publishers in South Africa for it, indirectly that would point out who I am.

Any old professor can talk a load crap... degrees and accreditations don't make a bullshit hypothesis valid; scientific reasoning is the only thing that separates unvalidated theories from real science -- funny how many profs try to ride solely on the former and / or use consensus to skip the latter.

You know it's not just CO2, right? It's noted as "an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases produces a positive climate forcing, or warming effect", not CO2 alone, just that CO2 is one of the most extreme ones (and NO3 is also one that is often pointed at, that causes acid rain).

Wrong... its water vapour.
You know that white fluffy stuff that the sky is filled with and that we (mere mortals) have no control over.
Trying to put a majority of the blame on CO2 over water vapour is laughable, and then at the same time just ignoring the sun borders on brainless -- you know that big fire in the sky; somehow I think it affects how hot it is going to be; you know a little like how the Earth's motions affects seasonality, Milankovitch cycles affect climate, etc.

Also if you believe the models are so accurate; so accurate as to predict 100 years into the future, then please share a model that can predict the cloud formations in tomorrow's sky for a given GPS location at given time. As a developer you should know that models are typically heavily parameterised, and what you put in and how you configure it, heavily influences what you get out i.e. GIGO (garbage in / garbage out), and like financial fraud, it's very easy to manipulate the parameters to ensure that the result represents what you need and/or want to it to.

Based on reading your discussion on this, you come off as either completely ignorant, or someone who has chosen a side and will not listen to reason and will attack anyone who says otherwise.

That's laughable... you on the side of the eco nutters that justify calling scholars DENIERS and in the same breath justify CANCEL CULTURE.
...but you want to call us ignorant.

Nope the ignorant one is you -- you're on the medieval side on the Copernicus situation, no different to those who gave him a hard time for challenging the political and religious belief that the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe.

You blame us (incl. me) of attacking; yet it is not us that label you as DENIERS, nor do we try to CANCEL YOU, or ANYONE. We don't shy away from debate, and we don't ever accept anything on face value -- we are SKEPTICS, because that's what differentiates REAL SCIENCE from politically manipulated bullshit. Real science after-all embraces skepticism; so a hypothesis denier is a good thing, never a bad thing; because a hypothesis on its own is worthless without independent and rigorous verification -- because real science is resolute, its truth is there for all to verify -- it does not need corrupt politicians and /or scientists to cancel other skeptical scholars, nor does it ever require consensus to be classified as a valid hypothesis.

 

[[)roi(]]

Ps.
I have no problems with EVs as potential future tech -- but they are in no way on equal footing with fossil fuel vehicles; even the eco sales pitch is all overblown lies, and at performance, energy efficiency, and refuelling they suck at best. No matter how you look at it... it's substandard tech by fossil fuel standards. Wake me up when they can fly a large plane full of passengers down to Cape Town and then turn around and fly back to Johannesburg in an hour and repeat the same multiple times... until then it's over expensive crap that is environmentally unsustainable.

Also pushing solar and wind instead of nuclear is laughable, because they're far more toxic on a global scale than nuclear will ever be. The majority of the EV owners in the US are anyway running on primarily fossil fuels; solar and wind are most certainly not capable in that regard as e.g. Germany has demonstrated. Also did you notice that Germany's emissions have gone up since they prioritised solar and wind over nuclear, whereas France with their nuclear has not.

Also do you remember that this was "science" by consensus, and anybody who disagreed with the consensus that fat was bad was similarly cancelled.

This was published in 1988, and 1988 is the year obesity really got a foothold in the US. Before that, there is very little data mentioning obesity and weight-related problems. There were even ads promoting products to help women gain weight.

Funny how this "science by consensus" ended making the world fat, increasing heart disease, diabetes, etc. All because politicians together with scientists, business and even the heart foundation and decided (as a consensus) that fat was bad, and carbs were good.
Even worse today there are a majority of people who are still brainwashed to believe that fat is bad, and sugar free is the healthy option, and that there are no consequences for drinking and eating lots of fruit, fruit juice and diet sodas.

The world in effect became sick because of "science by consensus", that couldn't even stand up to simple scientific reasoning i.e. skepticism, hence like the climate bullshit -- government, business, doctors and scientists actively attacked anyone who didn't tow the line and push what they by consensus had agreed was healthy.

I wonder what changed in the 80s? bullshit science always has consequences.

Yet today we're asked to just "trust the science" and don't be a denier -- politicians are your best friend and the science has been proved by consensus.

Now ask me again why the fuck I don't trust politicians, scientists, etc. and why I have such a disdain for "science by consensus", or any scientific hypothesis that tries to cancel any scholar who doesn't agree with it.