Air pollution deaths at WW2 scales are happening now

In NY Mag, a climate journalist David Wallace-Wells wrote about a study of the difference between 1.5 degrees of warming and two degrees.

He cited a Nature climate change paper – Quantified, localized health benefits of accelerated carbon dioxide emissions reductions

150 million more people would die from air pollution alone in a two-degree-warmer world than in a 1.5-degree-warmer one from now to 2100.

However, this does not highlight the fact that about 6 million people die every year now from air pollution. Fixing the particulate problem that is causing those deaths without focusing on the CO2 aspect would be 20 times cheaper and decades faster than the big CO2 fix.

China is spending hundreds of billions to address its air pollution issues because the citizens of China are demanding the fixes.

If the concern was really about the human lives being prematurely ended by particulates then that would be the mobilizing call which

It seems the climate scientists really care about the human lives lost to air pollution if it also involves reducing CO2.

230 thoughts on “Air pollution deaths at WW2 scales are happening now”

  1. If you are going to be credible, you need to learn to read. Marcus the Troll called it a cap. I was thus correct in saying ‘there is no vanishing arctic cap’ because, as you say, there is no Arctic ice cap.

    Reply
  2. If you are going to be credible you need to learn to read.Marcus the Troll called it a cap. I was thus correct in saying ‘there is no vanishing arctic cap’ because as you say there is no Arctic ice cap.

    Reply
  3. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published” Except when it threatens the entire grant whoring gravy train they all depend upon.

    Reply
  4. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published””Except when it threatens the entire grant whoring gravy train they all depend upon.”””

    Reply
  5. I LOVE how you folks switch between one ice cap and the other. Antarctica is NOT shrinking. NET ice loss is in the negative.

    Reply
  6. When it will happen it will be too late . Same as ignoring a cancer, you can live well at the beginning, when you cure it it may be too late Why do we have to risk the health of the planet because of stuupid people driving SUVs I key them, this is what I do

    Reply
  7. When it will happen it will be too late . Same as ignoring a cancer you can live well at the beginning when you cure it it may be too late Why do we have to risk the health of the planet because of stuupid people driving SUVs I key them this is what I do

    Reply
  8. If you’re going to be credible, you need to get the details right. There is no Arctic ice cap (except for Greenland/Svalbard/Ellesmere/etc), there is an ice pack. And even if it disappears in the Summer, it will always come back in the Winter.

    Reply
  9. If you’re going to be credible you need to get the details right.There is no Arctic ice cap (except for Greenland/Svalbard/Ellesmere/etc) there is an ice pack. And even if it disappears in the Summer it will always come back in the Winter.

    Reply
  10. And your source for your claim the arctic ice cap is bigger is? To describe that claim as dubious, is an understatement, fallacious fits better. As to what effect this has, the North Pole ice is fresh water, melting into the salt water ocean, changing it’s salinity. Then there is the South Pole ice which, unlike its northern counterpart, is sitting on a continent, not in the ocean. When that melts, and it is melting, it *will* raise sea level.

    Reply
  11. And your source for your claim the arctic ice cap is bigger is? To describe that claim as dubious is an understatement fallacious fits better. As to what effect this has the North Pole ice is fresh water melting into the salt water ocean changing it’s salinity. Then there is the South Pole ice which unlike its northern counterpart is sitting on a continent not in the ocean. When that melts and it is melting it *will* raise sea level.

    Reply
  12. Unfortunately, you persistently avert your gaze from the truth, namely that the North Polar Cap is thinning and shrinking, glaciers in many parts of the World are receding, we continue to experience years among the hottest ever recorded. All the while you and your climate change denying pals continue to insist “Global warming, what global warming?”.

    Reply
  13. Unfortunately you persistently avert your gaze from the truth namely that the North Polar Cap is thinning and shrinking glaciers in many parts of the World are receding we continue to experience years among the hottest ever recorded. All the while you and your climate change denying pals continue to insist Global warming”” what global warming?””.”””

    Reply
  14. Maersk is the name of a shipping company. It’s ships have name of the company incorporated into their names. Example: Emma Maersk There is no ship just named ‘Maersk’. You continually embarrass yourself with lacking even the most basic facts of that which you troll about. Not surprising. Standard symptom for chronic libtardism.

    Reply
  15. Maersk is the name of a shipping company. It’s ships have name of the company incorporated into their names. Example: Emma MaerskThere is no ship just named ‘Maersk’.You continually embarrass yourself with lacking even the most basic facts of that which you troll about. Not surprising. Standard symptom for chronic libtardism.

    Reply
  16. There is no vanishing arctic cap. In fact, it has been photographed from space as LARGER than the one in 1998 that Al Gore pushed around. And who cares if it vanishes anyway? It covered WATER. Thus it is like ice cubes in a class of water. There is no rise in water level. Duh!

    Reply
  17. There is no vanishing arctic cap. In fact it has been photographed from space as LARGER than the one in 1998 that Al Gore pushed around.And who cares if it vanishes anyway? It covered WATER. Thus it is like ice cubes in a class of water. There is no rise in water level. Duh!

    Reply
  18. I’m looking forward to your excuse for the vanishing arctic cap. Perhaps UFOs are taking it? Or perhaps the worlds climate scientists have been going up there and melting it to facilitate their socialist world-take over?

    Reply
  19. I’m looking forward to your excuse for the vanishing arctic cap. Perhaps UFOs are taking it? Or perhaps the worlds climate scientists have been going up there and melting it to facilitate their socialist world-take over?

    Reply
  20. NOAA has been caught red handed falsifying data. “Where where are your sources? Mini ice age?” I don’t have to prove anything to you. YOU have to educate yourself. This isn’t a debate and you know it, troll.

    Reply
  21. NOAA has been caught red handed falsifying data.Where where are your sources? Mini ice age?””I don’t have to prove anything to you. YOU have to educate yourself. This isn’t a debate and you know it”””” troll.”””

    Reply
  22. Sources monkey boy? NOAA says it has warmed 0.9C so far but you say mini ice age. Where where are your sources? Mini ice age? Who says so? Solar sunspot activity does not lie? But those people who interpreted them sure did lie you you.

    Reply
  23. Sources monkey boy? NOAA says it has warmed 0.9C so far but you say mini ice age. Where where are your sources? Mini ice age? Who says so? Solar sunspot activity does not lie? But those people who interpreted them sure did lie you you.

    Reply
  24. Scenario B would have nailed it except we were actually effective in getting CFCs out of the atmosphere, which Hansen didn’t include in his models.

    Reply
  25. Scenario B would have nailed it except we were actually effective in getting CFCs out of the atmosphere which Hansen didn’t include in his models.

    Reply
  26. You sound like a reincarnation of Warren – about as much scientific understanding as a door knob. Scientists compete with one another around the world. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published. This is how science self-corrects. Learn how science works before trying to criticise it. And BTW, the projections from even 30 years ago are spot on.

    Reply
  27. You sound like a reincarnation of Warren – about as much scientific understanding as a door knob. Scientists compete with one another around the world. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published. This is how science self-corrects. Learn how science works before trying to criticise it. And BTW the projections from even 30 years ago are spot on.

    Reply
  28. When are any of the doom and gloom predictions going to eventuate, so far none, zilch. When the data match the predictions then I’ll take it seriously. Till then I see sloppy and compromised scientists selling their integrity for grants.

    Reply
  29. When are any of the doom and gloom predictions going to eventuate so far none zilch. When the data match the predictions then I’ll take it seriously. Till then I see sloppy and compromised scientists selling their integrity for grants.

    Reply
  30. Who cares what you are going to do? It will no doubt involved a lot of trolling on NBF and elsewhere, I am sure. I was just pointing out the rock solid truth that the Chinese say one thing but their actions prove they are doing the exact opposite. Whether you want to cheer about that is entirely up to you.

    Reply
  31. Who cares what you are going to do? It will no doubt involved a lot of trolling on NBF and elsewhere I am sure.I was just pointing out the rock solid truth that the Chinese say one thing but their actions prove they are doing the exact opposite. Whether you want to cheer about that is entirely up to you.

    Reply
  32. C’mon, you’re complaining about climate scientists…” I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist’, except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well. “Secondly, 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years” Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.

    Reply
  33. C’mon” you’re complaining about climate scientists…””I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist'”””” except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well.””””Secondly”””” 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years””””Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.”””””””

    Reply
  34. Cute. You screw up yet demand that I adhere to a standard you don’t apply to the idiøt who called it a cap in the first place.

    Reply
  35. Cute.You screw up yet demand that I adhere to a standard you don’t apply to the idiøt who called it a cap in the first place.

    Reply
  36. Actually just read the Venta Maersk was expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean, a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming. You had better tell your boss Putin to stop humiliating his own trolls so publicly.

    Reply
  37. Actually just read the Venta Maersk was expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming. You had better tell your boss Putin to stop humiliating his own trolls so publicly.

    Reply
  38. Assert all you want, you’ve got jack to back it up with. I live in the real world (one which, unfortunately, is heating up). You are the one living in cloud cuckoo land, ignoring disappearing glaciers, shrinking polar caps and record-setting years for heat. Laughing isn’t going to make this go away, that is how the real world works.

    Reply
  39. Thing 1) You *do* have to provide evidence for what you say if you expect anyone to believe you. “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. and Thing 2) Repeating assertions of climate denier Congressmen, which are themselves made without evidence (e.g. that NOAA was “caught falsifying data”) is NOT evidence: www. factcheck .org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ (note- spaces inserted to avoid vuukle filters)

    Reply
  40. The climate denial sites that you got that from are cherry picking again- www .slate. com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass. html (note- I inserted spaces in the url to try to bypass vuukle’s filters, hopefully this will allow people to see and follow the links after deleting the spaces) . Antarctica is, in fact, losing ice as can be seen in this NASA posting “Ramp-up in Antarctic ice loss speeds sea level rise” climate. nasa .gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/

    Reply
  41. Assert all you want you’ve got jack to back it up with. I live in the real world (one which unfortunately is heating up). You are the one living in cloud cuckoo land ignoring disappearing glaciers shrinking polar caps and record-setting years for heat. Laughing isn’t going to make this go away that is how the real world works.

    Reply
  42. Thing 1) You *do* have to provide evidence for what you say if you expect anyone to believe you. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence””. and Thing 2) Repeating assertions of climate denier Congressmen”””” which are themselves made without evidence (e.g. that NOAA was “”””caught falsifying data””””) is NOT evidence: www. factcheck .org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ (note- spaces inserted to avoid vuukle filters)”””

    Reply
  43. The climate denial sites that you got that from are cherry picking again- www .slate. com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass. html (note- I inserted spaces in the url to try to bypass vuukle’s filters hopefully this will allow people to see and follow the links after deleting the spaces) . Antarctica is in fact losing ice as can be seen in this NASA posting Ramp-up in Antarctic ice loss speeds sea level rise”” climate. nasa .gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/”””

    Reply
  44. No. I do not have to provide ‘evidence’ that is all there for the non-idiotic to see. Why waste my time trying to prove to a blind man that the sky is colored blue? ” that NOAA was “caught falsifying data”: Yes it is. They falsified data. So did NASA. There are even emails from U of E Anglia that prove that was INTENTIONAL.

    Reply
  45. No. I do not have to provide ‘evidence’ that is all there for the non-idiotic to see.Why waste my time trying to prove to a blind man that the sky is colored blue? that NOAA was “”caught falsifying data””””:Yes it is. They falsified data. So did NASA. There are even emails from U of E Anglia that prove that was INTENTIONAL.”””

    Reply
  46. C’mon, you’re complaining about climate scientists…” I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist’, except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well. “Secondly, 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years” Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.

    Reply
  47. C’mon” you’re complaining about climate scientists…”” I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist'”””” except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well. “”””Secondly”””” 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years”””” Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.”””””””

    Reply
  48. The Russians! The Russians! NOW we can believe what the Russians say! But the Russians don’t own Venta Mearsk. Mearsk does. The ship is Danish registered, too! No Russians! Ah…the būllshit here on NBF that Greentards post! They think they can post outright factual errors just like the Global Warming Fraudsters do in their ‘papers’! VENTA MAERSK – CONTAINER SHIP IMO: 9775763, MMSI: 219115000 What is the ship’s current position? Where is the ship located? VENTA MAERSK current position is 60.42178 N / 26.90923 E on Oct 16, 2018 00:40 UTC. Vessel VENTA MAERSK (IMO: 9775763, MMSI: 219115000) is a Container Ship built in 2018 and currently sailing under the flag of Denmark.

    Reply
  49. Meanwhile…. the Russian container ship Venta Maersk, is expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean, a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming…

    Reply
  50. The Russians! The Russians! NOW we can believe what the Russians say!But the Russians don’t own Venta Mearsk. Mearsk does. The ship is Danish registered too!No Russians! Ah…the būllshit here on NBF that Greentards post! They think they can post outright factual errors just like the Global Warming Fraudsters do in their ‘papers’!VENTA MAERSK – CONTAINER SHIPIMO: 9775763 MMSI: 219115000 What is the ship’s current position? Where is the ship located? VENTA MAERSK current position is 60.42178 N / 26.90923 E on Oct 16 2018 00:40 UTC. Vessel VENTA MAERSK (IMO: 9775763 MMSI: 219115000) is a Container Ship built in 2018 and currently sailing under the flag of Denmark.”

    Reply
  51. Meanwhile…. the Russian container ship Venta Maersk is expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming…

    Reply
  52. Is it more like there are millions and millions of people breathing miserably, OR is this some type of Linear No Threshold (LNT) type statistical megadeath? Air pollution certainly affects health negatively (asthma, irritation, etc.). Experts could argue well that it shortens life expectancy – although this is invoking statistics again. People in poor smoggy dirty places have shorter life expectancy for a number of reasons. Is air pollution part of that? Sure. Is air pollution the cause of it – Nope. We all know smokers in their 70s – some in their 80s. We really need to banish this LNT math where small numbers are multiplied by large populations to estimate numbers of health effects such as cancer or death. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Reply
  53. Is it more like there are millions and millions of people breathing miserably OR is this some type of Linear No Threshold (LNT) type statistical megadeath?Air pollution certainly affects health negatively (asthma irritation etc.). Experts could argue well that it shortens life expectancy – although this is invoking statistics again. People in poor smoggy dirty places have shorter life expectancy for a number of reasons. Is air pollution part of that? Sure. Is air pollution the cause of it – Nope. We all know smokers in their 70s – some in their 80s.We really need to banish this LNT math where small numbers are multiplied by large populations to estimate numbers of health effects such as cancer or death.Lies damn lies and statistics.

    Reply
  54. That picture of the smog in Beijing (?), looks about as bad as we had in Calgary when the smoke from the forest fires in BC was at its worst this summer.

    Reply
  55. That picture of the smog in Beijing (?) looks about as bad as we had in Calgary when the smoke from the forest fires in BC was at its worst this summer.

    Reply
  56. The Russians! The Russians! NOW we can believe what the Russians say! But the Russians don’t own Venta Mearsk. Mearsk does. The ship is Danish registered, too! No Russians! Ah…the būllshit here on NBF that Greentards post! They think they can post outright factual errors just like the Global Warming Fraudsters do in their ‘papers’! VENTA MAERSK – CONTAINER SHIP IMO: 9775763, MMSI: 219115000 What is the ship’s current position? Where is the ship located? VENTA MAERSK current position is 60.42178 N / 26.90923 E on Oct 16, 2018 00:40 UTC. Vessel VENTA MAERSK (IMO: 9775763, MMSI: 219115000) is a Container Ship built in 2018 and currently sailing under the flag of Denmark.

    Reply
  57. The Russians! The Russians! NOW we can believe what the Russians say!But the Russians don’t own Venta Mearsk. Mearsk does. The ship is Danish registered too!No Russians! Ah…the būllshit here on NBF that Greentards post! They think they can post outright factual errors just like the Global Warming Fraudsters do in their ‘papers’!VENTA MAERSK – CONTAINER SHIPIMO: 9775763 MMSI: 219115000 What is the ship’s current position? Where is the ship located? VENTA MAERSK current position is 60.42178 N / 26.90923 E on Oct 16 2018 00:40 UTC. Vessel VENTA MAERSK (IMO: 9775763 MMSI: 219115000) is a Container Ship built in 2018 and currently sailing under the flag of Denmark.”

    Reply
  58. Meanwhile…. the Russian container ship Venta Maersk, is expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean, a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming…

    Reply
  59. Meanwhile…. the Russian container ship Venta Maersk is expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming…

    Reply
  60. C’mon, you’re complaining about climate scientists…” I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist’, except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well. “Secondly, 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years” Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.

    Reply
  61. C’mon” you’re complaining about climate scientists…”” I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist'”””” except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well. “”””Secondly”””” 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years”””” Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.”””””””

    Reply
  62. No. I do not have to provide ‘evidence’ that is all there for the non-idiotic to see. Why waste my time trying to prove to a blind man that the sky is colored blue? ” that NOAA was “caught falsifying data”: Yes it is. They falsified data. So did NASA. There are even emails from U of E Anglia that prove that was INTENTIONAL.

    Reply
  63. No. I do not have to provide ‘evidence’ that is all there for the non-idiotic to see.Why waste my time trying to prove to a blind man that the sky is colored blue? that NOAA was “”caught falsifying data””””:Yes it is. They falsified data. So did NASA. There are even emails from U of E Anglia that prove that was INTENTIONAL.”””

    Reply
  64. The Russians! The Russians! NOW we can believe what the Russians say!

    But the Russians don’t own Venta Mearsk. Mearsk does. The ship is Danish registered, too!

    No Russians!

    Ah…the būllshit here on NBF that Greentards post! They think they can post outright factual errors just like the Global Warming Fraudsters do in their ‘papers’!

    VENTA MAERSK – CONTAINER SHIP
    IMO: 9775763, MMSI: 219115000

    What is the ship’s current position? Where is the ship located? VENTA MAERSK current position is 60.42178 N / 26.90923 E on Oct 16, 2018 00:40 UTC. Vessel VENTA MAERSK (IMO: 9775763, MMSI: 219115000) is a Container Ship built in 2018 and currently sailing under the flag of Denmark.

    Reply
  65. Meanwhile…. the Russian container ship Venta Maersk, is expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean, a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming…

    Reply
  66. “C’mon, you’re complaining about climate scientists…”

    I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist’, except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well.

    “Secondly, 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years”

    Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.

    Reply
  67. No. I do not have to provide ‘evidence’ that is all there for the non-idiotic to see.

    Why waste my time trying to prove to a blind man that the sky is colored blue?

    ” that NOAA was “caught falsifying data”:

    Yes it is. They falsified data. So did NASA. There are even emails from U of E Anglia that prove that was INTENTIONAL.

    Reply
  68. Assert all you want, you’ve got jack to back it up with. I live in the real world (one which, unfortunately, is heating up). You are the one living in cloud cuckoo land, ignoring disappearing glaciers, shrinking polar caps and record-setting years for heat. Laughing isn’t going to make this go away, that is how the real world works.

    Reply
  69. Assert all you want you’ve got jack to back it up with. I live in the real world (one which unfortunately is heating up). You are the one living in cloud cuckoo land ignoring disappearing glaciers shrinking polar caps and record-setting years for heat. Laughing isn’t going to make this go away that is how the real world works.

    Reply
  70. Thing 1) You *do* have to provide evidence for what you say if you expect anyone to believe you. “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. and Thing 2) Repeating assertions of climate denier Congressmen, which are themselves made without evidence (e.g. that NOAA was “caught falsifying data”) is NOT evidence: www. factcheck .org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ (note- spaces inserted to avoid vuukle filters)

    Reply
  71. Thing 1) You *do* have to provide evidence for what you say if you expect anyone to believe you. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence””. and Thing 2) Repeating assertions of climate denier Congressmen”””” which are themselves made without evidence (e.g. that NOAA was “”””caught falsifying data””””) is NOT evidence: www. factcheck .org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ (note- spaces inserted to avoid vuukle filters)”””

    Reply
  72. The climate denial sites that you got that from are cherry picking again- www .slate. com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass. html (note- I inserted spaces in the url to try to bypass vuukle’s filters, hopefully this will allow people to see and follow the links after deleting the spaces) . Antarctica is, in fact, losing ice as can be seen in this NASA posting “Ramp-up in Antarctic ice loss speeds sea level rise” climate. nasa .gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/

    Reply
  73. The climate denial sites that you got that from are cherry picking again- www .slate. com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass. html (note- I inserted spaces in the url to try to bypass vuukle’s filters hopefully this will allow people to see and follow the links after deleting the spaces) . Antarctica is in fact losing ice as can be seen in this NASA posting Ramp-up in Antarctic ice loss speeds sea level rise”” climate. nasa .gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/”””

    Reply
  74. Assert all you want, you’ve got jack to back it up with. I live in the real world (one which, unfortunately, is heating up). You are the one living in cloud cuckoo land, ignoring disappearing glaciers, shrinking polar caps and record-setting years for heat. Laughing isn’t going to make this go away, that is how the real world works.

    Reply
  75. Thing 1) You *do* have to provide evidence for what you say if you expect anyone to believe you. “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. and Thing 2) Repeating assertions of climate denier Congressmen, which are themselves made without evidence (e.g. that NOAA was “caught falsifying data”) is NOT evidence: www. factcheck .org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ (note- spaces inserted to avoid vuukle filters)

    Reply
  76. The climate denial sites that you got that from are cherry picking again- www .slate. com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass. html (note- I inserted spaces in the url to try to bypass vuukle’s filters, hopefully this will allow people to see and follow the links after deleting the spaces) . Antarctica is, in fact, losing ice as can be seen in this NASA posting “Ramp-up in Antarctic ice loss speeds sea level rise” climate. nasa .gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/

    Reply
  77. Actually just read the Venta Maersk was expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean, a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming. You had better tell your boss Putin to stop humiliating his own trolls so publicly.

    Reply
  78. Actually just read the Venta Maersk was expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming. You had better tell your boss Putin to stop humiliating his own trolls so publicly.

    Reply
  79. Cute. You screw up yet demand that I adhere to a standard you don’t apply to the idiøt who called it a cap in the first place.

    Reply
  80. Cute.You screw up yet demand that I adhere to a standard you don’t apply to the idiøt who called it a cap in the first place.

    Reply
  81. If you are going to be credible, you need to learn to read. Marcus the Troll called it a cap. I was thus correct in saying ‘there is no vanishing arctic cap’ because, as you say, there is no Arctic ice cap.

    Reply
  82. If you are going to be credible you need to learn to read.Marcus the Troll called it a cap. I was thus correct in saying ‘there is no vanishing arctic cap’ because as you say there is no Arctic ice cap.

    Reply
  83. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published” Except when it threatens the entire grant whoring gravy train they all depend upon.

    Reply
  84. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published””Except when it threatens the entire grant whoring gravy train they all depend upon.”””

    Reply
  85. I LOVE how you folks switch between one ice cap and the other. Antarctica is NOT shrinking. NET ice loss is in the negative.

    Reply
  86. I LOVE how you folks switch between one ice cap and the other. Antarctica is NOT shrinking. NET ice loss is in the negative.

    Reply
  87. Actually just read the Venta Maersk was expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week having for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean, a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming.

    You had better tell your boss Putin to stop humiliating his own trolls so publicly.

    Reply
  88. If you are going to be credible, you need to learn to read.

    Marcus the Troll called it a cap. I was thus correct in saying ‘there is no vanishing arctic cap’ because, as you say, there is no Arctic ice cap.

    Reply
  89. “They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published”

    Except when it threatens the entire grant whoring gravy train they all depend upon.

    Reply
  90. When it will happen it will be too late . Same as ignoring a cancer, you can live well at the beginning, when you cure it it may be too late Why do we have to risk the health of the planet because of stuupid people driving SUVs I key them, this is what I do

    Reply
  91. When it will happen it will be too late . Same as ignoring a cancer you can live well at the beginning when you cure it it may be too late Why do we have to risk the health of the planet because of stuupid people driving SUVs I key them this is what I do

    Reply
  92. If you’re going to be credible, you need to get the details right. There is no Arctic ice cap (except for Greenland/Svalbard/Ellesmere/etc), there is an ice pack. And even if it disappears in the Summer, it will always come back in the Winter.

    Reply
  93. If you’re going to be credible you need to get the details right.There is no Arctic ice cap (except for Greenland/Svalbard/Ellesmere/etc) there is an ice pack. And even if it disappears in the Summer it will always come back in the Winter.

    Reply
  94. And your source for your claim the arctic ice cap is bigger is? To describe that claim as dubious, is an understatement, fallacious fits better. As to what effect this has, the North Pole ice is fresh water, melting into the salt water ocean, changing it’s salinity. Then there is the South Pole ice which, unlike its northern counterpart, is sitting on a continent, not in the ocean. When that melts, and it is melting, it *will* raise sea level.

    Reply
  95. And your source for your claim the arctic ice cap is bigger is? To describe that claim as dubious is an understatement fallacious fits better. As to what effect this has the North Pole ice is fresh water melting into the salt water ocean changing it’s salinity. Then there is the South Pole ice which unlike its northern counterpart is sitting on a continent not in the ocean. When that melts and it is melting it *will* raise sea level.

    Reply
  96. Unfortunately, you persistently avert your gaze from the truth, namely that the North Polar Cap is thinning and shrinking, glaciers in many parts of the World are receding, we continue to experience years among the hottest ever recorded. All the while you and your climate change denying pals continue to insist “Global warming, what global warming?”.

    Reply
  97. Unfortunately you persistently avert your gaze from the truth namely that the North Polar Cap is thinning and shrinking glaciers in many parts of the World are receding we continue to experience years among the hottest ever recorded. All the while you and your climate change denying pals continue to insist Global warming”” what global warming?””.”””

    Reply
  98. Maersk is the name of a shipping company. It’s ships have name of the company incorporated into their names. Example: Emma Maersk There is no ship just named ‘Maersk’. You continually embarrass yourself with lacking even the most basic facts of that which you troll about. Not surprising. Standard symptom for chronic libtardism.

    Reply
  99. Maersk is the name of a shipping company. It’s ships have name of the company incorporated into their names. Example: Emma MaerskThere is no ship just named ‘Maersk’.You continually embarrass yourself with lacking even the most basic facts of that which you troll about. Not surprising. Standard symptom for chronic libtardism.

    Reply
  100. There is no vanishing arctic cap. In fact, it has been photographed from space as LARGER than the one in 1998 that Al Gore pushed around. And who cares if it vanishes anyway? It covered WATER. Thus it is like ice cubes in a class of water. There is no rise in water level. Duh!

    Reply
  101. There is no vanishing arctic cap. In fact it has been photographed from space as LARGER than the one in 1998 that Al Gore pushed around.And who cares if it vanishes anyway? It covered WATER. Thus it is like ice cubes in a class of water. There is no rise in water level. Duh!

    Reply
  102. I’m looking forward to your excuse for the vanishing arctic cap. Perhaps UFOs are taking it? Or perhaps the worlds climate scientists have been going up there and melting it to facilitate their socialist world-take over?

    Reply
  103. I’m looking forward to your excuse for the vanishing arctic cap. Perhaps UFOs are taking it? Or perhaps the worlds climate scientists have been going up there and melting it to facilitate their socialist world-take over?

    Reply
  104. NOAA has been caught red handed falsifying data. “Where where are your sources? Mini ice age?” I don’t have to prove anything to you. YOU have to educate yourself. This isn’t a debate and you know it, troll.

    Reply
  105. NOAA has been caught red handed falsifying data.Where where are your sources? Mini ice age?””I don’t have to prove anything to you. YOU have to educate yourself. This isn’t a debate and you know it”””” troll.”””

    Reply
  106. Sources monkey boy? NOAA says it has warmed 0.9C so far but you say mini ice age. Where where are your sources? Mini ice age? Who says so? Solar sunspot activity does not lie? But those people who interpreted them sure did lie you you.

    Reply
  107. Sources monkey boy? NOAA says it has warmed 0.9C so far but you say mini ice age. Where where are your sources? Mini ice age? Who says so? Solar sunspot activity does not lie? But those people who interpreted them sure did lie you you.

    Reply
  108. Scenario B would have nailed it except we were actually effective in getting CFCs out of the atmosphere, which Hansen didn’t include in his models.

    Reply
  109. Scenario B would have nailed it except we were actually effective in getting CFCs out of the atmosphere which Hansen didn’t include in his models.

    Reply
  110. You sound like a reincarnation of Warren – about as much scientific understanding as a door knob. Scientists compete with one another around the world. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published. This is how science self-corrects. Learn how science works before trying to criticise it. And BTW, the projections from even 30 years ago are spot on.

    Reply
  111. You sound like a reincarnation of Warren – about as much scientific understanding as a door knob. Scientists compete with one another around the world. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published. This is how science self-corrects. Learn how science works before trying to criticise it. And BTW the projections from even 30 years ago are spot on.

    Reply
  112. When are any of the doom and gloom predictions going to eventuate, so far none, zilch. When the data match the predictions then I’ll take it seriously. Till then I see sloppy and compromised scientists selling their integrity for grants.

    Reply
  113. When are any of the doom and gloom predictions going to eventuate so far none zilch. When the data match the predictions then I’ll take it seriously. Till then I see sloppy and compromised scientists selling their integrity for grants.

    Reply
  114. Who cares what you are going to do? It will no doubt involved a lot of trolling on NBF and elsewhere, I am sure. I was just pointing out the rock solid truth that the Chinese say one thing but their actions prove they are doing the exact opposite. Whether you want to cheer about that is entirely up to you.

    Reply
  115. Who cares what you are going to do? It will no doubt involved a lot of trolling on NBF and elsewhere I am sure.I was just pointing out the rock solid truth that the Chinese say one thing but their actions prove they are doing the exact opposite. Whether you want to cheer about that is entirely up to you.

    Reply
  116. C’mon, you’re complaining about climate scientists…” I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist’, except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well. “Secondly, 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years” Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.

    Reply
  117. C’mon” you’re complaining about climate scientists…””I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist'”””” except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well.””””Secondly”””” 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years””””Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.”””””””

    Reply
  118. Is it more like there are millions and millions of people breathing miserably, OR is this some type of Linear No Threshold (LNT) type statistical megadeath? Air pollution certainly affects health negatively (asthma, irritation, etc.). Experts could argue well that it shortens life expectancy – although this is invoking statistics again. People in poor smoggy dirty places have shorter life expectancy for a number of reasons. Is air pollution part of that? Sure. Is air pollution the cause of it – Nope. We all know smokers in their 70s – some in their 80s. We really need to banish this LNT math where small numbers are multiplied by large populations to estimate numbers of health effects such as cancer or death. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Reply
  119. Is it more like there are millions and millions of people breathing miserably OR is this some type of Linear No Threshold (LNT) type statistical megadeath?Air pollution certainly affects health negatively (asthma irritation etc.). Experts could argue well that it shortens life expectancy – although this is invoking statistics again. People in poor smoggy dirty places have shorter life expectancy for a number of reasons. Is air pollution part of that? Sure. Is air pollution the cause of it – Nope. We all know smokers in their 70s – some in their 80s.We really need to banish this LNT math where small numbers are multiplied by large populations to estimate numbers of health effects such as cancer or death.Lies damn lies and statistics.

    Reply
  120. That picture of the smog in Beijing (?), looks about as bad as we had in Calgary when the smoke from the forest fires in BC was at its worst this summer.

    Reply
  121. That picture of the smog in Beijing (?) looks about as bad as we had in Calgary when the smoke from the forest fires in BC was at its worst this summer.

    Reply
  122. And yet they continue to import vast amounts of coal from the US of A! And will import even more than that in the future, too.

    Reply
  123. And yet they continue to import vast amounts of coal from the US of A! And will import even more than that in the future too.

    Reply
  124. When it will happen it will be too late .
    Same as ignoring a cancer, you can live well at the beginning, when you cure it it may be too late
    Why do we have to risk the health of the planet because of stuupid people driving SUVs
    I key them, this is what I do

    Reply
  125. If you’re going to be credible, you need to get the details right.
    There is no Arctic ice cap (except for Greenland/Svalbard/Ellesmere/etc), there is an ice pack. And even if it disappears in the Summer, it will always come back in the Winter.

    Reply
  126. And your source for your claim the arctic ice cap is bigger is? To describe that claim as dubious, is an understatement, fallacious fits better. As to what effect this has, the North Pole ice is fresh water, melting into the salt water ocean, changing it’s salinity. Then there is the South Pole ice which, unlike its northern counterpart, is sitting on a continent, not in the ocean. When that melts, and it is melting, it *will* raise sea level.

    Reply
  127. Unfortunately, you persistently avert your gaze from the truth, namely that the North Polar Cap is thinning and shrinking, glaciers in many parts of the World are receding, we continue to experience years among the hottest ever recorded. All the while you and your climate change denying pals continue to insist “Global warming, what global warming?”.

    Reply
  128. Maersk is the name of a shipping company. It’s ships have name of the company incorporated into their names. Example: Emma Maersk

    There is no ship just named ‘Maersk’.

    You continually embarrass yourself with lacking even the most basic facts of that which you troll about. Not surprising. Standard symptom for chronic libtardism.

    Reply
  129. There is no vanishing arctic cap. In fact, it has been photographed from space as LARGER than the one in 1998 that Al Gore pushed around.

    And who cares if it vanishes anyway? It covered WATER. Thus it is like ice cubes in a class of water. There is no rise in water level. Duh!

    Reply
  130. I’m looking forward to your excuse for the vanishing arctic cap. Perhaps UFOs are taking it? Or perhaps the worlds climate scientists have been going up there and melting it to facilitate their socialist world-take over?

    Reply
  131. NOAA has been caught red handed falsifying data.

    “Where where are your sources? Mini ice age?”

    I don’t have to prove anything to you. YOU have to educate yourself. This isn’t a debate and you know it, troll.

    Reply
  132. Sources monkey boy? NOAA says it has warmed 0.9C so far but you say mini ice age. Where where are your sources? Mini ice age? Who says so? Solar sunspot activity does not lie? But those people who interpreted them sure did lie you you.

    Reply
  133. You sound like a reincarnation of Warren – about as much scientific understanding as a door knob. Scientists compete with one another around the world. They therefore do not hesitate to call each other out if there is sloppy work being published. This is how science self-corrects. Learn how science works before trying to criticise it. And BTW, the projections from even 30 years ago are spot on.

    Reply
  134. When are any of the doom and gloom predictions going to eventuate, so far none, zilch. When the data match the predictions then I’ll take it seriously. Till then I see sloppy and compromised scientists selling their integrity for grants.

    Reply
  135. Who cares what you are going to do? It will no doubt involved a lot of trolling on NBF and elsewhere, I am sure.

    I was just pointing out the rock solid truth that the Chinese say one thing but their actions prove they are doing the exact opposite. Whether you want to cheer about that is entirely up to you.

    Reply
  136. “C’mon, you’re complaining about climate scientists…”

    I would toot my usual horn about your ongoing reading comprehension problem since a ‘climate journalist’ is not a ‘global warming scientist’, except Brian seems to have jumped from one to the other when writing this as well.

    “Secondly, 1.5C is going to be here in only 20 years”

    Hahahahahah! BS! We are heading into another Mini Ice Age. That is established empirical fact. Solar sunspot activity does not lie. Never has.

    Reply
  137. Is it more like there are millions and millions of people breathing miserably,

    OR is this some type of Linear No Threshold (LNT) type statistical megadeath?

    Air pollution certainly affects health negatively (asthma, irritation, etc.). Experts could argue well that it shortens life expectancy – although this is invoking statistics again. People in poor smoggy dirty places have shorter life expectancy for a number of reasons. Is air pollution part of that? Sure. Is air pollution the cause of it – Nope. We all know smokers in their 70s – some in their 80s.

    We really need to banish this LNT math where small numbers are multiplied by large populations to estimate numbers of health effects such as cancer or death.

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Reply

Leave a Comment