NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (3 Viewers)

[isladogs]

Doc

GET OFF THAT 97% NUMBER. You betray your closed-minded nature when blindly clinging to it.

That's a bit rich. You have quoted that 97% figure repeatedly throughout this thread. Back in post 138, I wrote:

What is news to me is this 97% figure.
That seems to be endlessly repeated by those who oppose the vast majority of scientific research findings. It is also being recycled within this thread. Personally I don't care if it was invented by a cartoonist as the figure isn't used in the scientific community as a whole. Nor is it in general use in the UK/Europe.

In fact that figure is almost as ubiquitous in your posts as the hockey stick chart that you keep telling us isn't valid.

I have stressed repeatedly that some of the evidence is less reliable than it should be. That is true for all scientific endeavour.
It is almost inevitable for an issue as complex as this.

Finding one piece of flawed evidence does NOT mean the consensus is wrong.
However, as we all know, you believe that to be the case.

I would be more interested in you using your scientific knowledge to provide a detailed critique of the research and climate models provided by the UK Meteorological Office. See the links I provided in post 119

 

[Mark_]

I do believe the BBC has been monitoring my recent reading habits...

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/201...y-brightened-clouds-could-stop-climate-change

Even though it is controversial, research in this area should not be dismissed. This is especially true if the "We will all die in 12 years" crowd is to be believed.

 

[isladogs]

Mark
I'll read it later but in the meantime it appears your current reading habits are all about smoke and mirrors ....

 

[Mark_]

Colin,

No mirrors. Personally I don't think putting one in orbit would be a good idea.

For myself, I'd much rather see solar arrays going across the moon beaming energy down than most of the other solutions. Odds are we'd have those who complain about the reduction of nocturnal illumination though.

 

[isladogs]

I think you may have missed the joke....Smoke = volcanoes ; Mirrors = greenhouses

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, in your reference to post 138, your quote doesn't seem (to me) to be an indication that I accepted the number as valid. I know where the number originated and know that it is based on statistics gathered without rigorous controls.

I would be more interested in you using your scientific knowledge to provide a detailed critique

I have been doing that by showing faulty data control, questionable data sources, and selective but unwarranted rejection of outlier data. ALL of those are critiques of the methodology.

The most egregious example is the "hockey stick" graph because of how it has been used - as a bludgeon to indicate disaster. And yet that graph omits data, plays mathematical games, and is clearly a mixed-source chart that purports to be an accurate prediction of some dire event. Yet it is an apples-and-oranges chart for which the uninteresting part is old data and the alarmist part is all new data from an alternate source.

My critiques are of statistical methods that are impure in their application and thus INSTANTLY subject to question. Did you want me to actually look at mathematical models and find the flaws in them? My expertise doesn't extend to atmospheric modeling. It extends to the use of statistical analysis in physical-world problems. That's the best answer I can give.

 

[Mark_]

Colin,

Different references then. Smoke = cloud seeding of various types (including high altitude such as volcanoes) and mirror = that half brained idea to put giant mirrors in space. Really. People thought that would be a good idea for reducing the amount of light striking the surface. Up with the idea of putting massive sun screens in orbit.

Yes, the greenhouses do work as passable mirrors, but there are those who have wanted to put ACTUAL MIRRORS in orbit. No way THAT could go wrong...

 

[isladogs]

Doc
The point I've been making is that you keep recycling the same items in numerous posts and again in many of the video clips that you keep posting.

Many of those who created the videos that you have linked also seem to make use of a very limited set of statistics and are selectively reinforcing the same points by endless repetition

I've never used the 97% figure nor have I ever used the hockey stick chart as supporting evidence. In my view its time that you moved on from both of those items.

As I previously stated, scientific research will often contain some flaws in methodology or outcomes. Not just in this area but in all areas of science.
The flaws will in many cases be minor and should not detract from the overall conclusions of that research.
However, occasionally there will be research that is significantly flawed and rightly deserves to be disregarded

I didn't expect your expertise to be such that you could critically analyse climaticalogical modelling. But that doesn't mean you should just ignore it as you appear to be doing ... in my opinion.

Mark
The trouble with jokes is that, when you have to explain them, they aren't funny ...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I was going to reply to this but edited the whole thing.

Repetition of something regarding a fundamental concept that is being ignored might be a good strategy or might not. But when I post things that show that the IPCC predictive models don't predict very well, NORMALLY that would show that the model is wrong. Instead I get excuses for why they really aren't wrong - and the excuses don't work for me. So to be honest, I don't know where else to go with this.

 

[Grumm]

Colin,

Different references then. Smoke = cloud seeding of various types (including high altitude such as volcanoes) and mirror = that half brained idea to put giant mirrors in space. Really. People thought that would be a good idea for reducing the amount of light striking the surface. Up with the idea of putting massive sun screens in orbit.

Yes, the greenhouses do work as passable mirrors, but there are those who have wanted to put ACTUAL MIRRORS in orbit. No way THAT could go wrong...

Maybe some of us want to see the beauty of the earth each morning when we look to the sky

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Maybe some of us want to see the beauty of the earth each morning when we look to the sky

And the rarity of it, in the cosmic scale! Just think, an atmosphere, what, 100 miles thick, of which just a mile or so supports life.

I read somewhere that the coldest place in the universe was a lab somewhere on earth.

That brought my thoughts to what else on Earth is unique? Of the 100 or so elements, life, and man concoct them (and usually concoct from just 10 or so) an amazing number of things.

Cheese
Beer
Bread
Wine
Chicken tikka
Naan bread
Chow mein

Up until what, 100 years ago, many of this vast variety of food stuffs did not exist.

Now look at music! What range of variations of music exist and it seems an exhaustible some new type of music is invented regularly.

And then you have Man his self with his ability to think, you could argue that that is a rare commodity! but on the scale of the universe how rare is it actually?

All this variety coming into being at this particular time. Never before, and maybe never again!

It's enough to make an atheist religious!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It's enough to make an atheist religious!

Let's not go overboard, now...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I will be accused of recycling the same old arguments again and again, but I continue to wonder how the AGW crowd can look themselves in the face after these reports were made public in freakin' 2010!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-uzNBtdYOo

The fraud, data mismanagement, and unscrupulous tactics of the virulently active AGW crowd sadden me because it means that many scientists have perverted the principles on which science is based. You NEVER discard your data. You NEVER refuse to include a longer time-base in your theory if the data set is valid.

I predict I will get a comment about James Corbett in some way that is an argumentuim ad hominem attack on him. But the Climategate e-mails cannot be wished away. The ugly reality cannot be swept under the rug.

 

[Galaxiom]

I will be accused of recycling the same old arguments again and again, but I continue to wonder how the AGW crowd can look themselves in the face after these reports were made public in freakin' 2010!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-uzNBtdYOo

Like other denialists, Corbett misrepresents the fact of the supposed scandal. His claims have been well and truly rebuked as any intelligent analysis would reveal.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Unfortunately Doc isn't interested in intelligent analysis and glibly posts anything that he hopes might back his ignorant prejudice. Clearly pretty desperate resorting to digging up decade old nonsense.

Of course he never acknowledges when he is shown to be wrong. Like when he falsely claimed that our hominid ancestors evolved at a time when carbon dioxide levels were higher than they are today. Shot down in flames but he never acknowledged he was wrong and had simply repeated the lies posted by his denialist heroes as he continues to do now.

Such is the nature of those inflicted with Dunning Kruger Effect.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

G, we must agree to disagree. You say the claims were rebuked. However, like the game of poker, "the cards speak for themselves."

As to the Dunning-Kruger effect, thank you very much for yet ANOTHER ad hominem attack. Such replies are common among those whose near-religious frenzy over a favorite topic admits no dissenters.

 

[Galaxiom]

As to the Dunning-Kruger effect, thank you very much for yet ANOTHER ad hominem attack.

The underlying problem is your excessive belief in your comprehension of the science combined with your obvious lack of knowledge. Classic Dunning-Kruger symptoms.

It is not an Ad Hominem attack when the problem actually is the man.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

This is a bit fishy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/newsnewschannel151018

Extract:-
Further action
Journalists have again been made aware of the need to carry out checks on the text that is sent in by outside providers of news pictures to ensure that the facts support the claims that are made.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Steve R.]

Journalists have again been made aware of the need to carry out checks on the text that is sent in by outside providers of news pictures to ensure that the facts support the claims that are made.

Journalist have to be less biased and not blindly "validate" the "global warming" mantra. Here is an example: "Rising seas threaten Norfolk Naval Shipyard, raising fears of 'catastrophic damage'".

Based on a casual read, the article "validates" that "global warming" is causing the US Navy problems in Norfolk.

But the shipyard now faces its greatest existential threat: rising seas and extreme weather driven by climate change.

But, if you read further, tucked away without any fanfare or analytical follow-up, there is the "small print':

Sea level in Norfolk has risen 1.5 feet in the past century, twice the global average, in part because the coastline is sinking. (emphasis added).

From the viewpoint of the reader, this article advocates for us to take action on resolving "global warming" because of the problems it is causing. Left out of how to solve the problems caused by relative sea-rise - - is how to address the issue of the land sinking. That is very unfair by the journalists.

PS: The land is sinking due to a meteor impact approximately 35.5 million years ago. Chesapeake Bay impact crater

A few months back, a professional journal that I subscribe to, had a very similar article. I talked to the editor on how such an article was very misleading since only half of the relative sea-rise at Norfolk can be attributed to supposed "global warming". Her response was "Thank-you" click. Again, the global warming crowd is contemptuously hiding behind biased articles that fail to fully inform the reader. Journalistic disgrace.

 

[AccessBlaster]

We are about one step away from throwing your neighbor in the gulag or re-education camps for leaving the porch light on.

 

[Steve R.]

We are about one step away from throwing your neighbor in the gulag or re-education camps for leaving the porch light on.

Very true. I think we have entered an updated form of the French Revolution's "Reign of Terror". The gulag, at least, is a better alternative to the guillotine.

----------------------------------------

Soon we may have a new "Committee of Public Safety" that will charged with unilaterally "protecting" the planet and sending non-believers to re-education camps.

As one example of the developing concept: The Criminal Dimension of Climate Change.

"Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival, a book by Peter Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth, with a foreword by leading climate scientist James Hansen, outlines the criminality of those who actively promote the continuing emission of carbon gases into the atmosphere despite having full knowledge of the consequences."

Another example of the developing concept: Is there criminal liability for climate change denial?

He concluded that there is potential criminal exposure for some of those involved. The First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech.

...

The sooner we talk about accountability, the sooner we will start taking meaningful action to avoid the worst consequences of the impending, and now unavoidable (but still reduce-able), climate disaster.

The stage is being set. Disagree with the "Climate Change" mantra, you are a criminal. Off to the gulag.