What do you think of climate change?

But you can’t refute the fact I presented, that they used a change in the temperature record to make an alarmist headline. The warming measured is still less than ‘estimated’, ergo proving them false.

But you are acknowledging they based their opinion on models of one small coastal area of Antarctica. It’s a stretch to project that to global tipping points.

You evaded my argument quite deftly. I didn’t say “there was no interaction”.

I said their feedback loops must not be that significant considering the ozone layer is recovering in spite of said loops, confirmed by NASA.

1 Like

Where does your friend work in Antarctica, precisely?

Here is what a recent NASA report says…

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” and …

“…the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica.”

I am guessing your friend works in West Antarctica or the Antarctic Peninsula. The NASA study has a lot to say about that that might give your friend second thoughts about “climate-change deniers.”


I don’t need to refute it on my own. The sources I cited refute it.

No, I’m not acknowledging anything - especially things that are beyond my expertise for me to pass judgement.

That is your interpretation of “significant.”

Here is one “prominent expert” who is on your side of the argument…

Quote: “If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,…”

You can keep him.

1 Like

I will start taking alarmism seriously when banks begin cutting long term mortgages on ocean front properties and insurance companies begin dropping coverage of those. Perhaps the Obamas and Gore selling beachfront properties might also be considered a signal of something significant.


I think it’s a bunch of hooey to sell population control and other products to well intentioned, but misguided people. Ironically, the very same products that are sold to people as “green friendly” are actually worse for the environment.

Your electric car pollutes the environment more than just a conventional automobile in not only thr manufacturing of the car but in the charging of the car via the coal powered plants that provide electricity.

Your organic foods take up more land to grow than you typical GMO food. Which means less land for trees and wetlands and rainforests.
( https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-12-13/study-organic-food-is-worse-for-the-climate-than-non-organic-food )

You see all those sad pictures of the polar bears and think they are in trouble? Funny enough the warmer waters means the seals the eat thrive and reproduce more, which means the polar bears eat and reproduce more. Even the native Inuits are saying the polar bears are better than have ever been before ( https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/polar-bears-keep-thriving-even-as-global-warming-alarmists-keep-pretending-theyre-dying )
( https://www.rt.com/op-ed/473160-scientist-fired-polar-bears-starving-not-climate-change/ )

Contrary to what Pope Francis and other leftist Hollywood types claim, forrest fires are good for the environment. It helps give nutrition to the soil and gets rid of dead trees so life can begin anew. Failure to regularly set fire to a forrest or actively remove the dead growth results in the hellish conditions of the massive forrest fires you see out in California (it also doesn’t help that the California government imports the most flammable tree from Australia). ( https://www.mrtreeservices.com/blog/forest-fires-benefit-environment/ )

The real inconvenient truth is that climate alarmists are being played and sold out to the corporations and politicians that stand to gain financially from climate alarmism.

A balanced article that discusses most of the “alarmisms” by showing they are far, far overblown.

If someone is really serious about NASA and climate change, maybe they should actually look at what NASA says about climate change and its main causes, such as what’s found here at this actual NASA website: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Your point was specifically about ice melt in Antarctica and how that proves warming.

This is what Nasa has to say about that…

The Antarctic ice sheet is gaining and not losing overall. Ergo, it is reducing sea level rise by 0.23 millimeters per year, as per the report.

It is interesting how you want to insist you were still right despite the evidence by shifting the discussion to something else.

Will you concede that your friend was incorrect in his views on Antarctica because, very likely, he was basing them on his merely localized experiences? That would mean your friend doesn’t have the ammunition he thinks he has to attack “deniers.”

Then we can move to looking at the other article by NASA that you cited.

1 Like

The sheet is gaining in its spread because of “calving”, whereas pieces, one the size of the state of Delaware, that break off.

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula. Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changehttps://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/impacts-of-climate-change/

Also, with gradually warming water temperatures, more evaporation leads to more precipitation in certain areas, but those areas are not uniform.

I wish some here would stop cherry-picking sources and actually check out the full statements from reputable sources, such as NASA. I posted a link for that site but then someone comes back with a cherry-picked article, which is disingenuous intellectually.

It’s clear your article is CHERRY PICKING the data, Antarctica Peninsula has not warmed 3C

Same for the whole of Antarctica.

1 Like

AGW was confirmed by NAS, considered the “gold standard” of science review in the U.S., several years ago. Skeptics funded an independent study, Berkeley Earth, and it also confirmed AGW. So did the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences.

In addition, organizations ranging from the Pentagon and the U.S. military, as well as various multinational banks and insurers, have issues reports to personnel and clients warning of the effects of AGW.

1 Like

Absolutely, but if one only gets their “news” from Fox and Breitbart, … :roll_eyes:

Again, to repeat, if one actually checks out the official NAS and NASA websites, amongst other actual reputable science sites, they all make it abundantly clear that we are in a global warming trend and that this is mostly being caused by human actions. Politically oriented sites may say otherwise, but I don’t use them for my science information.

End of story.

FYI attribution studies also apply to extreme cold weather!!!

AND FWIW yet again we see confirmation of a study which indicates a total lack of basic scientific understanding (by the general public) of what causes climate change

which as I have mentioned can be explained by the simple truth that,…

huh,… a real life climate scientist said climate change “deniers do a lot of weird things to misrepresent models. None of those analyses have been valid and they should be ignored. We should no longer be debating the basic science of climate change.”

now I am wondering what the climate scientist community would say to catholics who get their “science news” from political provocateurs spreading their warped views of reality on social media outlets about,… “Increase of climate change deniers/skeptics around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?”

for context


Yes, I forgot. Cold weather events are also proof of global warming. Apparently any event straying too far from the average is considered proof regardless of whether it is “too much” or “too little”.

A generic charge that AGW must be true because some people don’t understand basic science. This is like the charge that 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. It is used as an excuse to ignore the science, which is understandable given that so little of it beyond the mathematical models actually supports the claims being made.

That’s the only way the AGW position can be sustained - just stop examining it.

1 Like

I am so glad that you called this Forbes article balanced, because I agree. Notice that the major criticism in this article is directed at the popular media. Not the IPCC.

You need to do better than this with your arguments, it’s a strawman.
AGW isn’t disputed by anyone who knows a lick about the science
Yes, every denialist in science completely agrees CO2 is a GHG and man is contributing to warming by pumping up the level.

AGW itself is not disputed (the strawman)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.