NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

a reply to: Gothmog

Does anyone recall how that land got its name?

Yes. It got it from the fact that one or two bays on the southwest coast of that huge island were sporadically ice-free and grass grows on the land around them in summer. This was at the time Erik the Red, an exile from both Norway and Iceland, landed there — which was also slap in the middle of the brief Mediaeval warming period.

Erik, who wanted to build his own colony and rule over it, put out the word for colonists to his new 'green land' — which was, in fact, anything but.

That's how Greenland got its name: through a deliberate disinformation campaign, much like the one global warming 'sceptics' are conducting now.

a reply to: Gothmog

I dont go by numbers or charts which come from numbers. In any issue I do research from BOTH sides.The main question I ask myself is why.

Right. So you believe you can get to the truth by weighing different shades of opinion...

No numbers, those can always be changed to fit anything.

...unhindered by anything as inconvenient as quantitative fact...

I observe what people are saying and with intellect and logic as my tools dissect the reasoning.

...but drawing on your doubtless extensive knowledge of practical psychology and the varying agendas of those informed in the debate.

Good luck with that. It's an almost perfect recipe for drawing erroneous conclusions based on confirmation bias.

But wait! What have we here?

Also, you cannot look at just one science's point of view. Yes climatology. But also geology, archeology, even biology can tell tales of the climate way before the current "climatology" came in to being.

Indeed, many climatologists are geophysicists, meteorologists, biochemists and oceanographers. Do data obtained from the practice of these sciences tell us a different story from the one climatology tells? Could you supply us with a few examples?

The pure sciences can tell the app climate of the world at different times going back thousands if not millions of years.

The pure sciences are mathematics, physics and chemistry. Their fields of interest do not intersect with that of climatology at any point. The applied sciences are the ones that tell us about climate, and climate change.

Climatology only since the early 1900s.

The first climatologist, the dendrochronologist Shen Kuo, died in the year 1095.

Do you know how Greenland got its name ? Hint : it had nothing to do with technology.

Nor much to do with climate, either, but a great deal to do with political propoaganda.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Gothmog

I dont go by numbers or charts which come from numbers. In any issue I do research from BOTH sides.The main question I ask myself is why.

Right. So you believe you can get to the truth by weighing different shades of opinion...

No numbers, those can always be changed to fit anything.

...unhindered by anything as inconvenient as quantitative fact...

I observe what people are saying and with intellect and logic as my tools dissect the reasoning.

...but drawing on your doubtless extensive knowledge of practical psychology and the varying agendas of those informed in the debate.

Good luck with that. It's an almost perfect recipe for drawing erroneous conclusions based on confirmation bias.

But wait! What have we here?

Also, you cannot look at just one science's point of view. Yes climatology. But also geology, archeology, even biology can tell tales of the climate way before the current "climatology" came in to being.

Indeed, many climatologists are geophysicists, meteorologists, biochemists and oceanographers. Do data obtained from the practice of these sciences tell us a different story from the one climatology tells? Could you supply us with a few examples?

The pure sciences can tell the app climate of the world at different times going back thousands if not millions of years.

The pure sciences are mathematics, physics and chemistry. Their fields of interest do not intersect with that of climatology at any point. The applied sciences are the ones that tell us about climate, and climate change.

Climatology only since the early 1900s.

The first climatologist, the dendrochronologist Shen Kuo, died in the year 1095.

Do you know how Greenland got its name ? Hint : it had nothing to do with technology.

Nor much to do with climate, either, but a great deal to do with political propoaganda.

Go on , believe what you want. A bunch of politicians from the US and a bunch more politicians from the UN. Give all your money in the name of "regulation" to these rich people .
regulation = revenue = taxes = stealing from the poor and middle class.
I am so sure your money will "save the earth"
Not

a reply to: Gothmog

Of course I support scientifically informed efforts to understand and mitigate the effects of climate change; it is the leading threat to mankind's continued existence. And of course I am happy to see some of my own income spent on these efforts.

Sadly, I fear this will not be enough. There may soon come a time when we have to impose swingeing penalties and punishments on those who will not change their filthy, greedy, selfish ways. We may also have to start treating climate-change deniers as what they are fast becoming: enemies of humanity, and of the planet.

So, if one does not like the emperors new clothes, one is guilty of sedition, looking at global weather patterns for the past five years, seems to me, depending on where you live as regards cooling/heating, heating, no mean temperature rise for the last 16 years is it now? cool summers in Europe, damn cold winters in all fifty states last winter, snow in the Namibian desert, snow in Egypt, snow in Israel, the Atlantic conveyor has slowed down, Antarctic sea ice at an all time high, but ice shelves are melting, just what on Earth is going on?

a reply to: pikestaff

damn cold winters in all fifty states last winter,

No. Half the states had a warmer than average winter. More than half of North America had a warmer than average winter. As did Europe and most of the world.

just what on Earth is going on?

The planet is retaining more heat due to increased radiative forcing.

a reply to: jrod

Yes, I did. Did you read the many, many articles about GW folks lying, misrepresenting evidence, and so forth? I have. I base what I believe on sound data, not on falsehoods.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes, I did. Did you read the many, many articles about GW folks lying, misrepresenting evidence, and so forth? I have. I base what I believe on sound data, not on falsehoods.

Sounds like you don't base what you believe on sound data - but, rather - many articles telling you you've been lied to

How do you know those many articles weren't false?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes, I did. Did you read the many, many articles about GW folks lying, misrepresenting evidence, and so forth? I have. I base what I believe on sound data, not on falsehoods.

Sounds like you don't base what you believe on sound data - but, rather - many articles telling you you've been lied to

How do you know those many articles weren't false?

It's been admitted that falsified data was used, first off. Second, the GW crowd isn't even consistent. There is literally NO reason to believe them over common sense and sound data to the contrary.

You do know that rural temps are virtually unchanged for the last century, right?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It's been admitted that falsified data was used, first off.

By whom has it been admitted? Where and when?

Second, the GW crowd isn't even consistent.

About what?

You do know that rural temps are virtually unchanged for the last century, right?

Can you provide a data source? Here's one that says you are wrong.
www.skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm not going to ask you the same good questions Phage just asked you - so, I'll just comment...

There is literally NO reason to believe them over common sense and sound data to the contrary.

You know, there really isn't anything that I can say that will change your mind. I know that. To be honest - there's not much point - you don't seem to be useful to solving this problem anyhow

Believe it or not, I do understand how and why you believe you're being fed a story and not facts. I earnestly hope you have an aha moment - but, then, on the other hand - you might as well hit the snooze button and grab a few more minutes of uninterrupted bliss. Wish I could

I'm alternately hopeful and resigned to a not so pretty fate, but one thing I know for certain - there's been a tipping point. More than one probably - but this latest one involves people

You're denial doesn't matter as much as it once did. Who knows what we'll be able to pull off? All I know is - there are more and more folks every day that understand that our future depends on a new way of seeing this world, each other - and a new way of thinking

You might as well wish us luck

:-)

How do you define a denier? Denial and skepticism are not the same thing.

a reply to: Astyanax

a reply to: Phage

I know you know how to look this stuff up yourself.

Global Warming ‘Experts’ Admit: We Lied

Climate Scientist Admits To Lying, Leaking Documents

DailyCaller Home Politics US Entertainment Sports Business Tech Education Opinion Guns and Gear Video Blogs The Mirror Matt Lewis DC Trawler Ask Matt Labash Send a Tip Polar bear twin cubs are seen in Vienna Polar bear twin cubs are seen in Vienna's Schoenbrunn zoo March 4, 2008. The male cubs were born on November 30, 2007, and left their cave for the first time today. REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader (AUSTRIA) Daily Caller News Foundation Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand’

World’s Top Climate Scientists Admit “Computers” Got Global Warming Wrong. Sun Mysteriously Goes All Quiet

Scientists worldwide admit global warming is a hoax

Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data

It Was All a Lie: Climategate Scientist Admits There Is No Global Warming

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

None of those sources say that anyone admitted data was falsified. Apparently you just read headlines.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Maybe because its just plain rubbish? Dailymail for your Dailyspin, Dailywrong of course.

Hey, whatever works to make you feel better--attack the source instead of the information or the person from whom the quote came. Classic logical fallacy.

Funny how you complain about a source as having an ingrained spin, yet link to "Earth Times," a website with an obvious ideological agenda.

We both cited the NSIDC with differing conclusions (although mine cited an overall of ice extant, while yours discussed one single day). Funny how that works...

a reply to: jrod

Dude, I'm all for removing all tax subsidies to corporations across the board, so you won't find a argument against that from me.

a reply to: Phage

You didn't read all of those that fast.

Second line.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
You think it's the first time I've seen them?

Can you show me where anyone admitted to falsified data?
You read the articles right? You should be able to do that quite easily.

a reply to: Phage

We have seen that map a few times now Phage thanks.

Shame it appears to be inaccurate in some areas.

I know it is hard for many Northerners to understand, but when you have cold weather, we the people in the Southern Hemisphere, are having Summer = Hot weather.

I notice this map shows that my little corner of the Universe, has had "Much Warmer" above average temperatures in the Jan-March 2015 period.

But interestingly, I just perused my informative "Local" temperature organisations and found that the average temperature for January 2015 was BELOW Average (1977-2014 time frame), February was slightly above average, and March was BELOW average.

Take this information as you will, but the FACTS differ from the information shown on this Map as supplied.

So the question should be.........where did the "Experts" obtain their figures to produce this wonderful map?
Certainly not from the actual source it seems....

a reply to: gort51

But interestingly, I just perused my informative "Local" temperature organisations and found that the average temperature for January 2015 was BELOW Average (1977-2014 time frame), February was slightly above average, and March was BELOW average.

How about the average for January through March?

So the question should be.........where did the "Experts" obtain their figures to produce this wonderful map?

Did you bother looking for the answer?