Don't you just hate it when real ships like this one look a bit tacky so that they appear like they are computer generated.

The Ice will soon be gone anyway so this tacky ship will no longer be required.

#1 I at first thought that too.

#2 Yup, but not according to the nay sayers and deniers of climate change.

Have no fear, nuclear power is here! #3 Enjoy it while you can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

#4 yup, left to itself the next glacial period would begin to return in 50,000 years time.

Count me among the naysayers. Don't speak for them and then create a false argument. Also, acknowledge that there are no clear cut 'sides' to this issue, instead there is 'how much' climate change, whether it is caused by man or nature, and if the two are combining, what's the ratio. There is also warming vs. cooling vs. change.
There is also the divide between those who think the change is good or bad, and those who think it will be indescribably catastrophic vs. those who think it will be a non-story. So that's quite a matrix of different positions.

The sneering at people who think other than your thoughts isn't helpful to your cause- in fact it has resulted in very real pushback and loss of funding for study.

Statements like 'there is consensus in the sci community' and 'overwhelming evidence' also hurts the cause, because those statements are false.

The global cooling proponents are more common than you might think. A large fraction of the Russian science community is predicting significant global cooling in 30 years. Say what you will about russians in general, but they do a lot of good science.

Much of the dissent is caused by:
-Predictions of 'doom in X number of years' (the predictions NEVER come true, and we've lived thru many of them now)
-The mistakes numbers, averages and data have all favored the warming conclusions, never have they skewed in the other direction. This is suspicious to say the least.
-data has been deliberately skewed, and this fact was hidden for years (raw surface temperature readings)
-once discovered, a reason to skew it was manufactured, and then passed around in secret among NASA climate researchers.
-the reason and subsequent adjustment of temperatures before publishing is dubious
-climate models do not work, so far. They can't be made predict past climate change, for example.
-The 'Little Ice Age' caused a very significant glacial expansion, which is now ending. This is rarely acknowledged.
-
-The headlines in the mainstream media, as well as the conclusions in articles, are often wildly inaccurate, unscientific, and sometimes even dishonest.
-Putting a time limit on the needed actions isn't based on fact and is completely arbitrary.

Looking at all this should create a lot of questions and doubt. No one doubts that climate change should be studied and should be taken seriously, but the most shrill, emotional, unscientific voices are the ones driving the debate and the ones labeling everyone else ignorant 'deniers'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal_(icebreaker)

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/06/tampering-past-the-tipping-point/

#6 So you're saying that we can't trust science and should not believe what they are saying, even if there is overwhelming evidence???

We base most of our decisions according to scientific research, with the exception of those who base their decision and beliefs on religion. But besides science what should guide our behavior?

Most of us here on snotr are from the "Western world", where science plays a big role, and now suddenly we should debunk all research results that point to overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and caused by human behavior? That's just ridiculous, especially coming from people that live in a society that strongly look at science for a solution to many problems, many problems BUT the climate change, a fairly significant occurrence. So we pick and chose when we let us guide by science??

Is it possible that those who reject the science of the climate change may have special interests, especially with the fossil fuel industry, or have interest in individuals that are supporters of that industry? I don't know, I could be wrong. But by rejecting all obvious evidence of climate change, caused by humans, is absurd to say the least.

#8 Oh, and please don't believe what Tony Heller aka as Steve Goddard publishes as science. It's misinterpretation for the most part. He is not qualified on this subject, nor has he written any peer reviewed research on it.

Two news reports on Arctic ice and temperature from years past. ( Thanks Dennis53)

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1206_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2016-08-22-at-7_shadow-1.png

The climate has been ever changing thru-out history, and to claim that humans are the driving force
causing it is just stupid and arrogant.

to say that our co2 pollution (meat production, fossil fuels burning, ... ) , forest destruction, incredible waste volumes, plastic production, extinction of animal species, impact on food chain , heated cities, light pollution , tankers, air traffic and all of the other stuff we do doesnt have an impact on climate is just stupid and ignorant.

in the matter of 100 000 or 500 000 years you may even be right, this disbalance we made is of no importance... but at the moment we are complicating our own existence...

the planet we'll be ok.. we are not worried

#9 I don't think Dennis53 ever mentioned disregarding science altogether. Just hear both sides of the arguments before coming to your own conclusions.

Let me see, Climate change. Whose insights should I trust, David Attenborough or Donald J Trump?

#13, Donald J Chump must be right, I mean he seems like such a trustworthy guy!!... I don't think he ever tells lies or exaggerations right?

He lies through his teeth, always has, probably won't change now, too old to change.
Proof is the news source Politifact, which is in the center of left and right. Now, Obama has lied too, they have four pages of "lies" or misstatements on him, but 12 pages on Trump, and he has 1 1/2 more years to go.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

‘Climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.’

- Professor Bob Carter’ - specialist field: Marine Palaeoclimatology.

#16 thefox is back!

#17. Zee Fox iz alwayz close-by ma cherie

#18 Reassuring, dear thefox!

Agnete from Norway sings about icebreakers

#1 if it's only going to get warmer, why did they change it from global warming to climate change?

#2 I am a naysayer primarily from the angle that I don't believe their predictions. They've been so hysterically wrong in the past that I find it really difficult to believe their Chicken Little diatribe and none of them take into consideration that there's things we'll do along the way to potentially thwart it or adapt to it if it does seem to be causing a problem.

Additionally, if it's so catastrophic, why is virtually nothing being done? Green energy minus nuclear is laughably short on replacing fossil fuels in the very near future (AOC claiming we have 12 years left, 8 or so months ago?).

Whether or not global warming is real, we should do what we can to lessen the damage to the planet by burning less fossil fuels, but the predictions vs. the actions are miles apart.

Global warmists get tired of the naysayers, but I get tired of every weather or fire event being contributed to global warming. Here in CA by far most of the fires are man-made yet our previous governor Moon Beam blamed them on global warming and the media let him.