Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm using MMCC and CC interchangeably.

If MMCC is not your point of discussion, what are you going to do about natural CC?

a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy
Do you not know what the word "interchangeably" means? It means that I'm merely using Climate Change as a placeholder for Man Made Climate Change, so when I SAY Climate Change I REALLY mean Man Made Climate Change. This is now the third time I've tried to make that clear to you. Please understand now because I won't be continuing this offtopic semantics argument any further.

Never mind, It's Friday, i grab a beer and some popcorn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
I'm pretty sure that using "global warming/climate change/chicken little syndrome" to scam people out of money, and shame them for something that they may or may not be causing is a valid point.

Lol. More unscientific bull#.

There have been many bold claims based on climate change/global warming/[insert next big disaster here] over the past decade, and most of it hasn't happened.

You do realize that Katrina and Haiti are said to have been super disastrous because of climate change right? The superstorms and weather patterns are already hitting us and you are pretending like they aren't here.

Lol, I live in Florida dude, close to the beach. We haven't had a major hurricane in the last 11 years or so.. ever since this climate change/global warming/whatever BS has been running. I haven't seen the coast change at all. We haven't had "mega super ultra deadly storms" We always experience a drought every 5 yrs or so, and we currently aren't under drought.

Hurricanes happen. Tornadoes happen. Rain happens. Cold happens. Heat happens etc etc.. Just because you blindly follow science doesn't mean you are superior to people who question it. There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and you are getting mad at people who choose to side with the scientists who question it.

Science can be bought and paid for, information can be controlled. Don't act all high and mighty because you choose to champion a theory that some people might not wish to blindly believe.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see, so we have to follow the semantic rules made up by you? In a discussion that centers around MMCC vs Natural CC, you would think a sane person would not use these terms interchangeably......if there is any confusion, it is obviously due to your inability to use the correct term.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: stosh64
Right now I'm trying to convince the doubters.

Good luck with your fairy-tale

originally posted by: Gothmog

Good luck with your fairy-tale

Source?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A little unhinged are we? If you clicked the link you would had seen the article. It had two pictures on it. The first and most predominant was this one from Antarctica 100 years ago.



It had a second picture fron Finland which I unfortunately and accidentaly posted. If you read the link, its short, or just looked at the pictures you would have seen that, or did you read it and the truth made you nasty and angry?

From the article:

Wild reindeer and black-and-white cats Norwegian whalers introduced reindeer to the Antarctic island of South Georgia between 1910 and 1925. The animals were shot for food and were also hunted for sport by the whalers who were stationed on the island. Yoccoz is planning a research stay on the French island of Kerguelen in the Antarctic because the island was used as one of the whaling stations, where whaling boats came with their catch for processing. The French who lived on Kerguelen Island followed the Norwegian example and also released Swedish reindeer. Yoccoz says these reindeer have now become wild, and impossible to remove from the island. He would estimate that there are about 3,000 to 5,000 animals on an island that has never had mammals before, but they still don't have exact numbers.

Here is something else for you, hope it doesn't make you angry too.

originally posted by: eXia7
Lol, I live in Florida dude, close to the beach. We haven't had a major hurricane in the last 11 years or so.. ever since this climate change/global warming/whatever BS has been running. I haven't seen the coast change at all. We haven't had "mega super ultra deadly storms" We always experience a drought every 5 yrs or so, and we currently aren't under drought.

So because YOUR small part of the world appears to be unchanged to you then that means that Climate change is fake? That isn't scientific either, but at least it's a better response than the Al Gore BS.

Hurricanes happen. Tornadoes happen. Rain happens. Cold happens. Heat happens etc etc.. Just because you blindly follow science doesn't mean you are superior to people who question it. There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and you are getting mad at people who choose to side with the scientists who question it.

Lol you can't make a claim about questioning science and then immediately make the claim that there are scientists on your side of the argument. That is hypocritical.

In any case, scientist WELCOME skepticism. You are more than welcome to prove them wrong. You just have to do it using the scientific method, not some conservative news outlet or quoting some conservative talking head, or bring up Al Gore, or talk about climategate, or any of the other ridiculous non-scientific arguments deniers use to deflect from ACTUALLY seriously trying to disprove the theory.

Science can be bought and paid for, information can be controlled. Don't act all high and mighty because you choose to champion a theory that some people might not wish to blindly believe.

Lol. This is a nonsense statement without proof. More examples of unscientific thinking.

a reply to: whywhynot

A little unhinged are we? If you clicked the link you would had seen the article. It had two pictures on it. The first and most predominant was this one from Antarctica 100 years ago.

I like how you blame me for posting inaccurate information. Own your mistake! It's not my fault you posted the wrong picture. Sheesh your ego can take a hit or two. You won't die.

Humans are more likely to destroy/hurt the planet by putting in drastic measures to attempt to prevent or reverse "man-made" climate change rather than just letting the planet go on its natural course.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Pot meet kettle

a reply to: eXia7

Good to hear Florida is still there with all the sea levels rising beyond belief I figured it was nearly gone.

Unless the levels aren't rising??? Would most people know????

Hummm

Happy Beer Friday

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Humans are more likely to destroy/hurt the planet by putting in drastic measures to attempt to prevent or reverse "man-made" climate change rather than just letting the planet go on its natural course.

Got any proof or evidence that leads you to make this conclusion or are you just making stuff up off the top of your head because it sounds plausible?

Antarctica has been ice free before just look up: Viking Antarctica Map, the ancients mapped the continent with no radar.
When all those 1000's of Climate change scientists stop using their cars and live off the grid and stop the "Do as I say not as I do" crap, then maybe, maybe people will start believing in climate change.

a reply to: manuelram16

Antarctica has been ice free before just look up: Viking Antarctica Map, the ancients mapped the continent with no radar.

So? I've been wet before because I took a shower but does that mean that every time I get wet its because I'm taking a shower?

I'm more apt to believe it is turning Al Gores wallet green. Climate change is a reality in an ever changing world, it is nothing new and has happened before. The only diffence now is there are those that are trying like hell to cash in on it.
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The OP's premise is flawed from the start. There is NO overarching agreement by Climate Scientists. It was the "opinion" of 77 self identified Climate Scientists who responded to a masters study done by a student at the University of Illinois.

Yeah buddy...include epic face palm HERE.

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

So right out of the gate this is a perpetuated MYTH based on the opinions of at first 77 scientists backed up by another study based on a sampling size of 200. Both sample sizes are ludicrously much too small to in effect be any more than an indication that MAYBE more studies should be undertaken.

However the press ran with it as it was a headline and funding grabber. The OP has been whinging the counter arguments are lacking science, so science it is. Wegman Paper clearly states that flawed data is shared between those scientists and agencies which is driving the Myth of human based Climate Change.

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce had independently commissioned a study from Edward Wegman who is chairman of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The Wegman Report states "Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. It also states "In general, we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. The study also studied the social network of the group of scientists who publish temperature reconstructions. The study found that they collaborate with each other and share proxy data and methodologies, so that the "independent" studies are not independent at all. See the Wegman Report here.

Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports.

David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland's paper - "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey Stick' Affair and its Implications" published by "Energy & Environment", October 2007 here.

www.friendsofscience.org...

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce had independently commissioned a study from Edward Wegman who is chairman of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The Wegman Report states "Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. It also states "In general, we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. The study also studied the social network of the group of scientists who publish temperature reconstructions. The study found that they collaborate with each other and share proxy data and methodologies, so that the "independent" studies are not independent at all. See the Wegman Report here.

Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports.

David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland's paper - "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey Stick' Affair and its Implications" published by "Energy & Environment", October 2007 here.
www.friendsofscience.org...

The whole doom-porn drama of Climate Change has been pushed on us by politicians and Media. Until Clear and Unbiased data is used we don't know the drivers for Climate Change.

a reply to: Caver78

You know I never once made the 97% claim in this thread right? Clearly you aren't paying attention.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: stosh64
Right now I'm trying to convince the doubters.

doubters means they are open to scientific analysis and discourse.
When the starting stance of the "doubter" is to first off reject the mountains of evidence, then you aren't dealing with doubt, you are dealing with a cult.