He's supporting and advertising a free energy source. It's idiotic.

And he posts under pseudonyms as his own biggest fan. He's probably the GGP.

The suggestion that he's been right at some point when telling the engineers of the world that they're doing it wrong is laughable. The guy's got no sense of reality. Perpetual motion refutes consistently observed properties of the universe. Engineers know this.

You didn't follow his Electricity from air stuff then?
I'm familiar with him looking like a gargantuan idiot and pathetic narcissist, but not being right about a paradigm shift in engineering. Do you have an example?

Yeah, the world is kind of concerned about hackers at the moment, but China isn't the source that is of concern.

Are you counting Energy & Environment as peer reviewed?
If so, I question that classification. If not, which of those papers are published?

Your link gives 38 scientists who claim or believe that GW is not Anthropogenic. That is people, not papers, but for it to be 5% of people, the implication would be that there are only 760 climate scientists. 30,000 is a better estimate. As it is, 38 is 0.1%, or to the implied accuracy of the number of figures given in my 0% estimate, it would be 0%.

No, I think that the current warming is primarily caused by human activity, and that this is putting extinction pressure on great swathes of a wide range of ecosystems, is responsible for the observed acceleration in sea level rise.

They're not understanding that the increase in CO2 is responded to my a warming over the following decades though. Scientific sources are better, and Forbes' opinion pieces are appallingly unscientific when it comes to climate change.

So they did. A well researched and intellectual publication. Not scientific as such, but educated. It gets a pass.

Not quite true. There has been warming.

Not even close to correct. Completely wrong. Every time you decompose global warming into the response to natural and anthropogenic forcing it looks something like this. Most or all of the observed warming is anthropogenic. Every time you look at what is applying radiative forcing it looks like this. Anthropogenic forcing dominates, and of the anthropogenic forcings, CO2 forcing is the largest part.

There is no question in the scientific literature that most of the current warming is likely anthropogenic. About 0% of scientific organisations and 0% of scholarly papers refute this fact. We know it better than we know an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs.

That's a lot. Whose figures are you quoting?

The warming from an increase in CO2 takes 25-50 years for 60% of it to have occurred.

You need to look at the coming 30-40 years for the warming corresponding to emissions in the last decade.

There is also global climate. Such as the current warming.

No. The economic analysis shows that it is cheaper to reduce emissions.

Reducing emissions is possible and positive. You should pursue pipe dreams to if you want. That's not mutually exclusive.

Drop in biodiversity is real damage to the planet. Climate change and sea level rise is real damage to humanity.

The article looks at ice cores containing plastic, so "trapped in ice" is what they found.

They don't speculate on mechanism, but bits of plastic are lighter than ice and larger than water molecules. It's plausible that they would have a tendency to remain right against the underside of the sea ice if they are in the water, and would get caught up early in the freeze. It's also plausible that they would be caught in the ice by one or both ends when the saltwater rivulets form, and not tend to flush into the sea in the same proportion as the water, just because the water is smaller. And it's even plausible that they would work their way up into the ice rather than down if a freshwater bubble comes passing though (unless it is flowing fast), or if they find themselves melted into from above by fresh meltwater.

I don't find it implausible that the constant exchange between water and ice favours uptake of the plastic into the ice.

More related to the Vikings having depleted the soil fertility, I suspect. But regional climate change may have played a part.

Right, but the current climate change affects the planet since the industrial revolution, not since the history of the earth.

It's possible regionally. Where are you talking about? Globally we're probably warming than any time since the peak of the interglacial before last one, and possibly all times in the last 2-5 million years.

No. Theories get lots of hits on google scholar, because scientists have written about them. Quantum Field Theory is a Theory. It gets nearly half a million hits on google scholar.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is not. It gets less than 100 hits, mostly denialist writings of no scientific note.

The basic theory that explains Anthropogenic Global Warming is optics, which explains how greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effect.

By longboat, I believe.

I think Eric the Red's exile was the primary factor that set the timing.

In Greenland? It's been losing Ice Sheet Mass, because of increased glacial flow outstripping increased precipitation. Recent findings suggest that the ice sheet is much more vulnerable to ocean warming that previously thought.

It depends on context. Can you point out which time I said "something like observed conditions" that you are referring to? Sometimes observations of ice go back nearly a million years, by ice core histories. Some Ice observations go back to 1978, the satellite histories.

Certainly colder. Warmer is uncertain globally within the past couple or few million years. Central Greenland regionally has probably been warming in the past few hundred years, judging from Ice cores.

No. Global warming is what happens when you warm the globe. It's not a theory. The relevant theories are probably optics and thermodynamics. There are no observations that suggest the globe isn't currently warming. Energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere measurements, and sea level measurements are probably the most irrefutable signs that the globe is warming, as a globe. But surface temperature measurements are also strongly indicative.

The loss of the Northern Summer Sea Ice will change ocean dynamics. The released plastic could make its way to other oceans.

Zook is right about that. Older sea ice has been decimated in the last decade.
The evidence is that his imagination regarding plastic trapped in the sea ice is lacking, but he's right about the age of Arctic sea ice.

Northern summer sea ice volume has dropped 60% over the past 35 years.

But I wonder if you have misinterpreted projections of Mann and Hansen.

I notice Mann was an author on a paper about the Antarctic Ice Sheet, but I can't find the one about the Arctic Ice that your refer to. Do you have a citation?

The current that comes up past Europe from the Atlantic sinks and flows back beneath the surface. Plastic that floats will accumulate at the surface around Greenland, and may spread around the Arctic Ocean.

I doubt it. We reached the climatic optimum about 8000 years ago. It would have been growing overall between then and the industrial era.