Climate change deniers . . .

Climate cycles occur over long periods of time, tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. The temperature rise we are seeing now can't be accounted for by the normal climate cycle or by short term natural variations.

You can't argue that 8 billion will people have an affect on the planet and then call it naive to believe we can't stop the effect we are causing. That's double think.

People are going to have to adapt because it's already too late to stop some of the effects of climate change. However prevention is far better and far cheaper than adaptation.

Are are not in a peak warm cycle. If not for man made climate change the planet would likely be slightly cooling. Th

As for the next ice age, its probably hundred thousands years away. A few centuries.. yeah sure.

Whoooooosh!!!

So this is the guy wo Trump appointed head of the National Climate Assessment report. Wielicki who has no formal training in climate science is other wise known for making frequently posting criticism of established climate science, like making videos on the rightwing Youtube channel PragerU (the U standing for University, which it's not). Many of his claims have already been rebutted online as they are directly contradicted by the available evidence and some of other view are just far right conspiracy nonsense, such as climate policy is actually a vehicle for communism.

You can see why the Trump administration tapped him for the role. He's unqualified for it and he's already predisposed to ensure the next report aligns with the Trump administrations agenda.

Now he does make the point

"If it happened naturally in the past, we should expect it to happen naturally again in the future—regardless of atmospheric CO₂."

Which is very likely correct. But of course this ignores the point that man made global warming will almost certainly make these sort of events more frequent.

Otherwise this guy is exactly what he accuses others of being, a grifter.

Of course and once they reached a temperature when they started melting around 1850, the temperature doesn’t have to increase for them to continue melting…in fact the melting should accelerate as bright snow surfaces are replaced with less reflecting rock and also as the glacier reaches lower more protected terrain.

But hey climate agnostics are stupid hey? Not nearly as smart as the hyenas that are learning these things about glaciers for the first time….glad to help morons. Now go and ask AI, you have been educated just enough to ask a few questions.

ROFL!.

Ships have been sinking long before torpedo's were a thing too.

Which is also common regardless of green agenda...Pieces of glaciers break off if it reaches the ocean, or a lake or the end of a cliff...more concerning is the fact that the Chinese engineers did not consider this eventuality when they designed their fans and other infrastructure...seems more likely to happen than a 1 in 200 flood.

"Yes, glaciers do move. The thing is, they normally move at about the same speed that hair grows that DDA runs."

@Rooinek ….you would like me to make your case. But no, after the end of the Little Ice Age. Man made carbon was less than 10% of what it is today by the end of WW2. If that was the reason for those glacier collapses through 1950, by now the Alps should be sliding into Geneva.

@bobbok ….the Guardian really, that bastion of honesty? But once again the experts have found what they want to find. Here’s a history of exceptional heat and glacier failure and Chat’s well reasoned conclusions.

………

Yes. The sanity check weakens any simple claim that “major glacier collapse = exceptionally hot weather”.
Looking at the better-documented failures:
Event Immediate temperature/weather evidence Does exceptional heat look important?
Altels, Switzerland — Sep 1895 Contemporary observers specifically described 1895 as warmer than usual, and later modeling found that warming and meltwater could have reduced basal adhesion. The paper also notes several unusually hot preceding summers. Probably contributed
Kolka, Caucasus — Jul 1902 Historical evidence identifies major ice/rock falls and glacier instability, but I could not find a reliable quantitative temperature anomaly for the preceding days/weeks. Unknown
Huascarán, Peru — Jan 1962 A true ice avalanche occurred, but classic glaciological reviews explicitly say how the simultaneous failure occurred remained an open question. Not established
Allalin, Switzerland — Aug 1965 Glacier was in one of its recurring surge-like active phases. Meltwater was involved, but these active phases occurred every 1–3 years without catastrophic failure. The literature does not identify exceptional heat as the decisive trigger. Possible, not demonstrated
Huascarán — May 1970 Triggered by a M7.9 earthquake. No
Kolka — Sep 2002 Complex rock/ice collapse preceded by weeks of rock and ice falls. Researchers considered many mechanisms; the source zone was actually cold permafrost, estimated around −5 to −10°C. No clear exceptional-heat trigger
Aru-1, Tibet — Jul 2016 Nearby station data showed temperatures within the normal range; NASA explicitly says there was nothing unusual about temperature or rainfall. Another study did find unusually high precipitation. No
Aru-2, Tibet — Sep 2016 Same regional situation; researchers emphasize unusual glacier dynamics, basal conditions and mass balance rather than a short heatwave. No clear heat trigger
Chamoli, India — Feb 2021 About a +5 K temperature anomaly during the preceding week, plus heavy snowfall. But the detailed study says the proposed meteorological triggers lack a strong demonstrated mechanical connection and temperatures at ~5,000 m remained below freezing. Plausible, uncertain
Marmolada, Italy — Jul 2022 This is the strongest case: preceding 70 days had temperatures outside the 1990–2020 standard-deviation range and at record highs; excess meltwater produced high hydraulic pressure. Yes, strong evidence
Nepal–Tibet — Aug 2026 Ground temperature measured ~10 km away was reportedly the highest in the two-year sensor record, two days beforehand. Cause remains under investigation. Plausible, too early
What I think the sanity check tells us
Of the roughly 10 historical cases for which we have something useful to say, I would classify them approximately:
2 with fairly strong evidence of unusually high temperature: Altels 1895, Marmolada 2022.
1 with a substantial short-term warm anomaly but uncertain causation: Chamoli 2021.
2–3 where ordinary meltwater/summer conditions mattered but extraordinary heat has not been demonstrated: Allalin and perhaps Kolka.
Several where exceptional heat is absent, unsupported, or clearly not the trigger: Aru 2016, Huascarán 1970, and probably others.
And Aru is particularly valuable as a control case: two enormous glacier detachments occurred in the same summer, yet measured temperatures were not exceptional.
That leads me to revise the weight I'd put on the current 2026 heat observation. The fact that the collapse occurred during warm August weather is not particularly probative, because glacier failures are already disproportionately summer/melt-season phenomena. And saying the nearby ground temperature was the highest in a two-year record sounds impressive, but two years is far too short to establish that the weather was historically exceptional.

How many examples do you need of oil disruptions caused by geopolitical instability. Suez Crisis, 6 Day War, Arab Oil Embargo, Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq War, Iran invading Kuwait, Venezuelan oil strike, Iraq War, Hurricane Kartina and Rita, Libyan Civil War, Russian invasion of Ukraine, USA war on Iran.

As for your argument about food shortages you know that's another strawman because your leaving out the ever so vital context that climate policies are not trying to eliminate fossil fuels overnight or before we have alternate means to replace them in food production. Is it possible to replace fossil-fuel consumption while maintaining modern living standards and food production, it will be a challenge but yes it's possible. Yes it will be costly, but the cost of inaction will likely be far higher.

As for Trump. Yes even if he had taken the most pro climate challenge policies and went hell for leather on them since returning to office it would almost certainly have made no difference to this disaster. On the other hand him and people like him have set back and delayed climate change action for years.

Fair point on the political instability around oil. But, however severe it has been, countries can work around it. If you have a Fukushima or a Nepal glacier event it can’t be negotiated away.

Secondly the world has been trying to trend away from oil since the mid 1990s. But fossil fuel consumption has gone up 70% since 1990 and the derivative of the consumption curve is not declining….ie fossil fuel consumption is not showing any signs of even plateauing. That’s the result of billions of practical decisions made by human beings every year. Hard to change.

And efforts to make the change have been hindered by the desire to eliminate oil where possible….so EVs vs Hybrids. If we had gone the Hybrid route 10 years ago gas consumption would be way lower. Once you have the Hybrid using the battery will be dominant, except for long trips. Practicality vs idealism, the missing element.

Regardless of what we believe about the severity of climate change, finding new energy technologies that work is a good thing if done sensibly. So far the results of what we have been doing are a failure

@Stavanger1 listen from about 37min on for the discussion on climate change.

• @bobbok and that's fueled by the largest economy on the planet...USA, 26% of the World Economy, 12% of the emissions. China 15-20% of the world economy, 30 - 35% of world emissions.

@Stavanger1 I think he means you’re contrary…..like Mary, Mary.

@Mozart
fecking shameful

@Rooinek ….no I haven’t been ‘defeated’, unless you think Anger is winning the debate by excusing Ireland for sympathizing with Hitler’s death. That’s pretty much the moral nadir on the Boards we have used. Far worse than any ‘pro apartheid’ sympathies you may have jumped on. And I don’t tar all those Irish people with the Nazi brush. Just those like Anger who still defend that position.

I’ve seen enough of life to know there is no racial or genetic proclivity to being amoral. That’s a case by case basis or a group by group basis. The Afrikaners are some of the least racial people out there. They have lived with and understand Africans. But they inherited the inherent racism of the Empire and built on it, in part because they saw the need for a survival mechanism. Understandable but not right.

So no, I have many Irish friends. I’m going to dinner with some of them tonight. I love singing Irish songs and I love playing golf in Ireland. But when an Irishman accuses the US of all sorts of atrocities, he’s on very thin ice. Pointing that out is not out of bounds and when a fact checker assumes a tone of intellectual superiority but can’t put a proper sentence together, that’s also fair game…..and I might add something you have dumped on many times yourself.

Let me summarize the BS. In te earlym 1970's the so-called climate scentists prdicted that t he next ice age will sart no later than 1985 and humanity will be vortually wiped out in the process, Not hing ha[ened and in the 1990's the same scoentists started screaming about global warming. Every predictoion the clowns made was never proven. - one was that Miami would be under water by 2010.

Whenever anybody states facts on the wild statement by scaremongering "scientists" making hemselves making millions out of their dire predictions - people are supposed to beleive their forecasts,

I am sorry - the wrld is over-populated and that could have an impact on the environment, The answer w get from the World Economic Forum is that the ideal world population should be circa 500 to 900 million people, The simplistic answer to reduce cow numbers because hey cause global warming through farting is just plain stupid,

So how do one get rid of the excess population. Imn te west it is easy - just cause reduction in child brth through the Woke system. In the rest of the world it is not, The Wuhan originating pandemicc in 2020 was just a trial run. The scoentsts are bound to develop a new virus that would really do the job. The deal wold population wou,ld be as follows:

Asia 400 million people
Europe 50 Million
Africa 50 milions
The Americas 100 million
Rest - 20 million.

Voila - problem solved,

.

@DbDraad

Again Draad that doesn't contradict the fact that man made CO2 is increasing the planets temperature. You're simply demonstrating your ignorance of the topic.

"I'm much more concerned about microplastics in the ocean than CO2"

Microplastics in the sea is a significant issue but there is nothing to suggest it's a greater issue or threat to mankind than the rapid warming increase caused by man made CO2 emissions.

"and there are way more harmful substances released into the atmosphere than CO2."

It's possible in certain regions around the world there is more harmful substances released into the atmosphere that present a more immediate threat to that localized region than global CO2 emission but again there is nothing to indicate it's a greater global threat to mankind that manmade CO2 emissions.

Neither of the above are justification for inaction on CO2 emissions.

".so called green energy has become too politicized and a money making racket for crooked politicians"

It's been politicized entirely by the anti-climate change side and the fossil fuel industry. It's the fossil fuel industry and it's advocates who have spent considerably more money lobbying against climate change action than it's proponents.

"even if we cease all fossil fuel consumption today, the climate will keep on changing regardless and there will be a significant cooling period in the not too distant future"

This argument has been debunked countless times. Normal climate change isn't what we are seeing now. About 250 million years ago when the planets temperature increased 10 degrees in 50,000 years there was a mass extinction event that eliminated 90% of all species on earth. Our present rate of warming is something around 50 times that.

As for a significant cooling period you're really letting the words not too distant future do a lot of heavy lifting then? What's your time table for this, who's your source?

"we need to be able to adapt or a significant portion of earths population will die"

Adapt to what, non existent cooling?

"at the same time it's not a good idea to poison your environment...but yeh, humans are selfish and stubborn."

Sure it's not a good idea to poison your environment, nor is it a good idea to do accelerate the warming of the planet to a degree that will massive negative effects on large parts of the human population. Yes humans are selfish and stubborn as your post demonstrated. You downplay climate change for ideological reason, stubbornly sticking too tired long debunked positions despite a mountain of evidence contradicting them.

So tell us with all the human generated hot air…..how much has carbon use gone down since the 1990s…..all the conferences, all the agreements, all the new technologies have produced….what?

We have not slowed CO2 emissions:

Global CO₂ emissions have increased by roughly 70% since 1990, rising from about 22 billion metric tons per year to a record high of over 38 billion metric tons by 2025/2026.

Policies have been designed to destroy the oil industry with little regard for what people want and what industry needs. Some of the apparent progress has simply come with the outsourcing of heavy industry to China and others. It’s an epic failure and if temperatures were as sensitive to CO2 as originally predicted, temperature changes would be far greater.

A failure in remediation offset in part by the original scientific failure exaggerating the problem.

We have not slowed CO2 emissions:

That's not what I said. I said the rate of emission increases has slowed and effectively plateaued in recent years.

Policies have been designed to destroy the oil industry with little regard for what people want and what industry needs.

The oil industry has decades to adapt, but it went out of its way to deny and delay. We know that for example Exon Mobile decades ago conducted their own research into climate change and that research findings was in total alignment with man made climate change driven by CO2 emissions. They had 25 years of research by their own scientists that was later to be found to be highly accurate that contradicted their public statements downplaying climate change. The people do not want the effects of climate change but people like you and fossil fuel industry go out of their way to deceive, lie and misdirect them.

Some of the apparent progress has simply come with the outsourcing of heavy industry to China and others.

It's true to an extent that some of the Wests CO2 emissions were transferred to China and other countries with the relocation of heavy industry but the key word is some, the Wests reduction in CO2 emissions far outweigh the amount of emissions transferred over seas.

A failure in remediation offset in part by the original scientific failure exaggerating the problem.

The failure is on the part of the lobbyists and climate change deniers who have done everything to slow down action on climate change and have spent years massively downplaying the problem.

The sicking thing is that if that you and others would be able to live long enough to see the more severe consequence of climate change that is coming, you'd simply turn around and with a straight face say... oh this is terrible... but alas their was nothing that could of been done.

Ah so the second derivative has gone to zero. Why didn’t you say so….oops I forgot you don’t understand mathematics.

The people do not want the effects of climate change but people like you and fossil fuel industry go out of their way to deceive, lie and misdirect them.

The people don’t want the doomsday scenarios that people like Gore put out there. But many have concluded that was largely fiction

As for the sources of CO2 reduction…here you go:

Of every 100 tonnes by which Western territorial CO₂ emissions have declined since roughly 2005, perhaps 15 tonnes reflect increased net imports of embodied emissions, and around 25 tonnes reflect coal being replaced by gas. The other 60 tonnes principally reflect renewables, nuclear retention, improved energy efficiency, reduced energy intensity, slower electricity-demand growth and changes in industrial structure.

**Forty percent had nothing to do with green efforts, although it probably could have been much larger. For example simply pushing hybrids vs electric cars would have generated much wider acceptance. In the meantime it’s doubtful we have seen much more that 1 degree C increase because of CO2. And if we exclude coal from future sources until and if a proper recapture technology is available ….we have aleady used 60% of remaining reserves.. Green has a role to play where it makes economic sense. The rest can be solved by growing nuclear to replace coal and substituting gas for oil. No need for all the hair on fire nonsense **

The challenge for people in the 2300s isn’t going to be a warm earth it’s going to be the absence of a transportable, efficient source of energy that works with all types of machines.Myguess is they will be doing coal to oil and cursing their ancestors for using so much oil.