Climate alarmist destroyed

[paxamericana]

Oh my, turns out the ocean isn’t even rising that much.

“
The research found that the average sea level rise in 2020 was only around 1.5mm per year, or 6 inches per century, according to the paper’s authors, Dutch engineering consultant Hessel Voortman and independent researcher Rob de Vos.

“

[gatomontes99]

Oh look, a peer-reviewed article that contradicts the chicken Littles, sky is falling b.s. Go figure.

[CdnFox]

About the only actual science that's been posted here on climate change. despite asking billions of times for any real science showing there's a crisis or that anything we can do would have a substantial impact we've never seen a single paper from the other side. 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Oh my, turns out the ocean isn’t even rising that much.

“
The research found that the average sea level rise in 2020 was only around 1.5mm per year, or 6 inches per century, according to the paper’s authors, Dutch engineering consultant Hessel Voortman and independent researcher Rob de Vos.

“

Got bad news for YOU: NYP is NOT a peer reviewed SCIENCE JOURNAL. LMAO

The SATELLITES DON'T LIE Duh

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (.gov)

https://www.climate.gov › understanding-climate › clima...

 

Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of melt water from ...

Missing: peer ‎| Show results with: peer

Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its ...

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3758961

 

by N MIMURA · 2013 · Cited by 478 — The present paper provides an overview of the sea-level rise issue based on a review of these and other relevant publications. 2. Sea-level rise since the end ...

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change - NASA

NASA (.gov)

https://climate.nasa.gov › vital-signs › sea-level

 

Graphs showing sea level change from 1900 to present, derived from tide gauge and satellite data.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Got bad news for YOU: NYP is NOT a peer reviewed SCIENCE JOURNAL. LMAO

The SATELLITES DON'T LIE Duh

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (.gov)

https://www.climate.gov › understanding-climate › clima...

 

Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of melt water from ...

Missing: peer ‎| Show results with: peer

Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its ...

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3758961

 

by N MIMURA · 2013 · Cited by 478 — The present paper provides an overview of the sea-level rise issue based on a review of these and other relevant publications. 2. Sea-level rise since the end ...

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change - NASA

NASA (.gov)

https://climate.nasa.gov › vital-signs › sea-level

 

Graphs showing sea level change from 1900 to present, derived from tide gauge and satellite data.

Ummm, none of that is peer reviewed science. 

And sea levels since 1900 are a guess, pretending it's satellite data that 'doesn't lie'  is just silly.  How many satellites do you think we had in 1899?

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Got bad news for YOU: NYP is NOT a peer reviewed SCIENCE JOURNAL. LMAO

The SATELLITES DON'T LIE Duh

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (.gov)

https://www.climate.gov › understanding-climate › clima...

 

Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of melt water from ...

Missing: peer ‎| Show results with: peer

Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its ...

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3758961

 

by N MIMURA · 2013 · Cited by 478 — The present paper provides an overview of the sea-level rise issue based on a review of these and other relevant publications. 2. Sea-level rise since the end ...

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change - NASA

NASA (.gov)

https://climate.nasa.gov › vital-signs › sea-level

 

Graphs showing sea level change from 1900 to present, derived from tide gauge and satellite data.

What are the Satellites telling us, dumbass? How much time does Martha's Vineyard have before it goes under water? Will somebody please inform the Obamas? 

Edited September 7, 2025 by Deluge

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Got bad news for YOU: NYP is NOT a peer reviewed SCIENCE JOURNAL. LMAO

The SATELLITES DON'T LIE Duh

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (.gov)

https://www.climate.gov › understanding-climate › clima...

 

Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of melt water from ...

Missing: peer ‎| Show results with: peer

Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its ...

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3758961

 

by N MIMURA · 2013 · Cited by 478 — The present paper provides an overview of the sea-level rise issue based on a review of these and other relevant publications. 2. Sea-level rise since the end ...

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change - NASA

NASA (.gov)

https://climate.nasa.gov › vital-signs › sea-level

 

Graphs showing sea level change from 1900 to present, derived from tide gauge and satellite data.

It is a peer-reviewed article. The problem is, you don't know how to find embedded links, so you missed it. 

[Michael Hardner]

Whether or not it's a peer-reviewed source: 

 

1. Single paper does not " destroy " anything, or Friis-Christensen would have destroyed climate change already in the 1990s. 

2. It's not up to science to determine if something is a crisis. That's in the public sphere, because crisis is not an objective term.

[Nationalist]

57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Whether or not it's a peer-reviewed source: 

 

1. Single paper does not " destroy " anything, or Friis-Christensen would have destroyed climate change already in the 1990s. 

2. It's not up to science to determine if something is a crisis. That's in the public sphere, because crisis is not an objective term.

Uh...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622004464

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Uh...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622004464

 

Indeed they may publish, as they call, "Conceptual paper arguing for pragmatism in crisis public health policymaking.".

 

I don't think it's the right place for it.  So I stand by my point on that. And I assume you agree.

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Indeed they may publish, as they call, "Conceptual paper arguing for pragmatism in crisis public health policymaking.".

 

I don't think it's the right place for it.  So I stand by my point on that. And I assume you agree.

I do think its the right place, as they go on to say...

"We propose that to better prepare for the next public health crisis..."

Thus acknowledging a crisis.

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. I do think its the right place, as they go on to say...

1. You think that scientific papers should be used to express OPINIONS of a political nature?  That's a big change in how issues are discussed.

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You think that scientific papers should be used to express OPINIONS of a political nature?  That's a big change in how issues are discussed.

Yes. And so does the World Health Organization. 

Google 'WHO declares crisis'

"The World Health Organization (WHO) declares a crisis through a formal declaration known as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) when an extraordinary event poses a significant risk to global health. This declaration is made when the situation is serious, sudden, unusual, or unexpected, requiring coordinated international response efforts."

The WHO Mike. The Grand Pooba of medical science...so we're told.

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Yes. And so does the World Health Organization. 

Google 'WHO declares crisis'

 

2. The WHO Mike. The Grand Pooba of medical science...so we're told.

1. That's an apples and oranges comparison. 

2. They're a global health organization, not the same as what I was talking about.  Scientists publish papers, they are reviewed by peers, and then they find their way into the public sphere which includes global health institutions like the WHO, And NGOs.

I'm still wondering:

Do you think that scientific papers should be used to publish opinions?  Now I'm thinking you think that's a bad idea, as do I.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Uh...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622004464

 

Your NAKED LINK PROVES NOTHING except you got NOTHING BETTER.

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It is a peer-reviewed article. The problem is, you don't know how to find embedded links, so you missed it. 

They didn't cover that in his advanced doctorate of computer science and because he's 6.3 and cut the monitor is too far away from where his head is to notice them. 

[Nationalist]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's an apples and oranges comparison. 

2. They're a global health organization, not the same as what I was talking about.  Scientists publish papers, they are reviewed by peers, and then they find their way into the public sphere which includes global health institutions like the WHO, And NGOs.

I'm still wondering:

Do you think that scientific papers should be used to publish opinions?  Now I'm thinking you think that's a bad idea, as do I.

You claimed science doesn't use terms like crisis. They most certainly do.

No. I do not think scientific papers should include opinions. I also do not think people like that fat, failed politician Gore, should warping scientific findings.

We already have the technology in place to use fossil fuels in a much "cleaner" way. Plus we have nuclear. Thus most of any "damage" that's been done over the last century and a half, is being reduced. This war on fossil fuels is a fool's errand.

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. You claimed science doesn't use terms like crisis. They most certainly do.

2. No. I do not think scientific papers should include opinions.  

 

1. Here is a copy/paste of my points in this thread:
 

Quote

 

 It's not up to science to determine if something is a crisis.

That's in the public sphere, because crisis is not an objective term.

Indeed they may publish, as they call, "Conceptual paper arguing for pragmatism in crisis public health policymaking.".

I don't think it's the right place for it.  So I stand by my point on that. And I assume you agree.

I didn't say 'science' or scientists don't use the term.  I stated that published scientific papers shouldn't be used for opinion/editorial.
2. As I suspected.
 

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Here is a copy/paste of my points in this thread:
 

I didn't say 'science' or scientists don't use the term.  I stated that published scientific papers shouldn't be used for opinion/editorial.
2. As I suspected.
 

Then we agree. The scientific community was wrong to declare a health crisis and should stick to facts.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Then we agree. The scientific community was wrong to declare a health crisis and should stick to facts.

I already stated what I agree with.

The second sentence is different, and more broad.  "Scientific community" is hard to pin down.  Individuals can, in a professional context, declare that we are in crisis.  Nothing wrong with that, and their points can be disputed.

But scientific papers are a specific thing and have specific rules.

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I already stated what I agree with.

The second sentence is different, and more broad.  "Scientific community" is hard to pin down.  Individuals can, in a professional context, declare that we are in crisis.  Nothing wrong with that, and their points can be disputed.

But scientific papers are a specific thing and have specific rules.

And those specific papers do not claim there is a crisis. Of late, it appears the more we know, the more we see all the panic is nothing more that hyped-up chickenshit.

However...scientific bodies of authority spew chickenshit as a matter of course.

I would "hope" that, as an advocate for real scientific reporting, you'd be all over these bodies of authority to stop scaring the Hell outta the public and for outright lying.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. And those specific papers do not claim there is a crisis.

2. Of late, it appears the more we know, the more we see all the panic is nothing more that hyped-up chickenshit.

3. I would "hope" that, as an advocate for real scientific reporting, you'd be all over these bodies of authority to stop scaring the Hell outta the public and for outright lying.

1. Except for that new one, yes.

2. Not really - we haven't looked at that in detail but the record temperature levels points to continued areas of concern.

3. Well, no.  I have a life so I'm not looking at these every day or every week.  I did agree without that the so-called paper that was cited was framed incorrectly.

I don't think there's any argument between us on this thread.

[paxamericana]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

argument between us on this thread.

 Look man, I'm not wanting to agree with people on this forum, there wouldn't be anything to talk about if we did. Rage baiting people with strong opinion and muddling through the ad hominen to find any real substance is part of the adventure.

Edited September 8, 2025 by paxamericana

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

1. Look man, I'm not wanting to agree with people on this forum, there wouldn't be anything to talk about if we did.

2. Rage baiting people with strong opinion and muddling through the ad hominen to find any real substance is part of the adventure.

1. But fighting, denying, and not listening to others' points makes it a noise forum rather than a discussion forum.
2. Only if you aren't dealing with a troll though.
 

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. But fighting, denying, and not listening to others' points makes it a noise forum rather than a discussion forum.
2. Only if you aren't dealing with a troll though.
 

1. What do you expect? Mike you may claim to not engage in fighting and denial, but the climate religious most certainly do. Hence the "noise". And we both know who starts the mud-slinging.

2. Trolling is something we all do. I've watched you do it too. 

I sit and watch the rationality of the public be hi-jacked by that loud, overbearing, very disruptful relative everyone has. The family Karen. Or Todd. The dull. And I feel honorbound to oppose them. 

We are not all gonna die. It is not essential that extreme views need be taken seriously. There was a time, not all that long ago, when common sense, absolute truth and compromise were normal. Today they are "concepts" that can be warped and made meaningless.