Global warming? Meh, not so much. . .

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, I am expecting a documentary that will attempt to rebut An Inconvenient Truth.

I really don't remember stating that this will be the end-all-be-all of the debate. I simply stated that a rebuttal documentary was to be aired.

So you're watching a documentary which will question the claims of another documentary, lol.

There is no debate on the main issues. Just a lot of FUD from a group of shills and kooks. There's as much debate in science over the existence of a human effect on climate as there is in science for the existence of evolution.

Effectively, nothing. You're about 20 years to late. If any of you have new evidence, submit it for publishing it and we'll assess its veracity.

You appear to be the only one with a closed mind here.

Are you worried, perhaps? A bit insecure?

TheRedneck

Closedmind to what, RD? I've heard almost every argument you and other deniers have. They are generally tripe. I actively seek out denier arguments and the current science. You actively seek out documentaries that stroke your ego.

I assume you accept that antarctica is melting now what with your supposed 'openmind'? Are you going to correct your misleading statement in the other thread? You have been shown two recent scientific studies which show a net loss of ice mass in antarctica, and a very recent one indicating an acceleration of melting...

Unless your mind is so open it'll fly straight through. Or more likely, it'll just get twisted and misrepresented like you did when responding.

You see, your position is both evil and wrong. Like the tobacco company shills playing FUD with people's lives and refusing them the ability to make informed decisions based on real reliable evidence.

But a little bit of me can't but help like cads. A genetic thing probably.

Anyway, ciao guys. I can't be bothered addressing the exact same mouldy arguments I was discussing 1, 2, 3 years ago here. When you have something new, I might bother. Otherwise, if you want to go beyond the deniers echochamber circle****, check my post history the reply to your misinformation is probably there.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I bet if you went through all of your old posts on this issue and read them objectively, you would discover why people find your arguments so unpersuasive. Here are a few clues; shill, kook, denier, evil and wrong, etc.. And this from just one post!

What would happen if we quit harping on about global warming and got down to the business of finding solutions to these problems? Who is denying that there are environmental issues to solve? If we really care about the environment, perhaps we should work to remove the stumbling blocks from the debate and start finding solutions.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
You have about exhausted all your arguments, I'm afraid; you're starting to repeat yourself. And our arguments still keep coming.

You're deluded, but I still like you.

My arguments are based on the science and the science keeps coming. Again, you're still spouting the same crap as you ever were, along with the rest of the deniers. Did the 'new' documentary focus on 'the' Hockey-stick? Which one? The one from 1998, or the other dozen or so that have been published since, all of which confirm the original 1998 study? The same 'Hockey stick' that threads have been whining about here for years? So the arguments are still focusing on some plus ten year old study that has been confirmed multiple times, lol.

It's like groundhog day.

RD: antartica's not melting
Me: It appears it is, look here's two studies*** one from 2006 and one brand new one from this month showing an acceleration in melting
RD: oh, it's just melting round the edges, overall there's no ice loss
Me: lol, but the actual data*** shows otherwise..
RD: *rinse, wash, repeat*

And, smack, I'm not deluded, the likes of RD, et al ever accepting the evidence is as likely as my computer turning into a penguin - my style is of minimal relevance in that regard. Their position is ideological, emotion-based, and irrational (and I'm guessing yours is, I put you on ignore for a reason). I accept Swift's suggestion that you can't reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into.

And style over substance is not my 'style'. But I'll note your concerns. I've seen how successful Essan's more measured approach is here, lol. If you want to take a rational sceptical position, do see Essan for guidance. He's a good guy and, although we disagree on certain points, he knows the score in general.

My suggestion - Try going beyond dragging out the dead for your arguments, you're starting to remind me of the Amish ignoring all that new-fangled sciency stuff.

Catch ya later.

***yeah, I know, I just say 'it's tripe' and stuff - the studies I post are just a figment of my imagination. Of course, they might as well be for all the impact actual evidence has on some people here. Wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your ideology.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by melatonin]

[edit on 10/19/2009 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

You're deluded, but I still like you.

I like you too Mel. It's so much fun to watch you squirm your way through these debates while trying to act cool and collected.

Squirm, lol. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I added that last line for completeness.

Actually, I thought about adding the fact that I posted links to prove the Antarctic is not losing ice, but I didn't want to mess up such a fine and well-thought out quote.

But you 'proved' nothing bar what I'll show in a mo'. You just regurgitated a stream of articles you thought supported your claim. And I did read the media articles, just wasn't worth my time responding - I just posted the actual data. I've already done so for some of those you posted in the past (check post history***), you see, I've seen this issue before - like groundhog day. However, just for you...

...one last wedgie before my flit.

You posted three articles to support the claim:

Originally posted by TheRedneck

True, if the Antarctic ice were melting. But the Antarctic ice is not melting ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, you're saying antarctic ice is not melting, ice is expanding in much of antarctica, and therefore that means the 'belief' that the continental ice mass is melting is wrong. Lets see how that stands up to scrutiny. I'll repeat again to anyone who cares, never ever take anything RD says at face value. Check, check, and check again.

So lets see what the supporting evidence has to say. As we're in up-is-down land, I do it backwards...

Third article from April 2009 in an Indian media outlet, based on another media article in the Australian, based on quotes by a Dr Ian Allison:

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

Oh noes, it suggests that global warming isn't melting the ice cap...so where's the evidence...

According to Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison, sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water.

Oh, I see, it's about sea ice, which is not continental ice mass. Sea ice has increased in the east, but stable. Cool.

So what does he say about the actual continental ice mass:

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting.

"The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said.

Oh, right. Yeah, that's sort of what the studies say. And they show overall antarctica is losing ice mass.

So, lets scratch the third. Doesn't support this, you see:

Originally posted by TheRedneck

True, if the Antarctic ice were melting. But the Antarctic ice is not melting: ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

Sea ice is increasing in the East but stable overall, Eastern ice mass stable, Significant losses in the West.

Second article from April 2009, this time the New Scientist with quotes from Dr Turner of the BAS:

It's the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That's why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.

But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.

Arctic sea ice is decreasing dramatically and reached a record low in 2007. But satellite images studied by Turner and his colleagues show that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in every month of the year expect January.

Oh, I see. Sea ice in antarctica is increasing in a year. Yeah, I heard. But that's not the continental ice mass.

So, lets scratch the second. Doesn't support this, you see:

Originally posted by TheRedneck

True, if the Antarctic ice were melting. But the Antarctic ice is not melting ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

Sea ice is increasing in some ways. Cool.

The first article is from April 2009 on the Watt blog, based on a media report in the Australian and using quotes from a Dr Ian Allison...I've heard this before, oh yeah. This article was based on the same media report as the third article:

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. “The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west,” he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

See above...sea ice is increasing in the east but stable overall, Eastern ice mass stable, Significant losses in the West.

So, lets scratch the first. Doesn't support this, you see:

Originally posted by TheRedneck

True, if the Antarctic ice were melting. But the Antarctic ice is not melting:ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

All gone now...is Emperor Redneck naked?

Noes, your slip is showing, RD. Put it away, you're making me blush. Here, try these on:

Published Online March 2, 2006
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
Science Express Index

Reports
Submitted on December 13, 2005
Accepted on February 21, 2006

Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
Isabella Velicogna 1* and John Wahr 2*
1 University of Colorado and CIRES, UCB 390, Boulder, CO 80309-0390, USA; Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Mail Stop 300-233, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099, USA.
2 University of Colorado and CIRES, UCB 390, Boulder, CO 80309-0390, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Isabella Velicogna , E-mail: [email protected]
John Wahr , E-mail: [email protected]

Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites we determine mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002-2005. We find that the ice sheet mass decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 km3/year of ice, equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 mm/year of global sea level rise. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Letter abstract
Nature Geoscience 1, 106 - 110 (2008)
Published online: 13 January 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo102

Subject Categories: Climate science | Cryospheric science

Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling
Eric Rignot1,2,3, Jonathan L. Bamber4, Michiel R. van den Broeke5, Curt Davis6, Yonghong Li6, Willem Jan van de Berg5 & Erik van Meijgaard7

top of page
Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent's interior1, 2, 3, but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica's coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4+/-61 Gt yr-1. In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 132+/-60 Gt yr-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 60+/-46 Gt yr-1 in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.

Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE

I. Velicogna
Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.

Received 28 July 2009; accepted 3 September 2009; published 13 October 2009.

Naw, doesn't really suit you. Too reasonable for a redneck.

Ciao, dude. Take it easy.

***www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-10-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Wow! You put me on ignore? I'm sorry that my posts disturb you so much that you'd go that far to avoid even looking at them.

Well you can continue your crusade, Mel. You won't gain any converts though. In fact what you will do is make enemies. So I have to wonder what it is you really hope to achieve.

Arctic lake sediments show warming, unique ecological changes in recent decades
October 19th, 2009
A University of Colorado at Boulder-led analysis of a 200,000 year-old sediment core from a Baffin Island lake indicates warming temperatures in the Arctic due to human activity are overriding a natural cooling trend in the region. Credit: Photo by Jason Briner, University at Buffalo

An analysis of sediment cores indicates that biological and chemical changes occurring at a remote Arctic lake are unprecedented over the past 200,000 years and likely are the result of human-caused climate change, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

www.physorg.com...

They are attributing the lake warming to natural causes including wobbling of the earth.

Originally posted by melatonin

People might like to think I represent some form of closed-minded agenda, but I'm more interested in veracity of information and presenting the current science.

Then why engage in name-calling and (shoddily cobbled together) character assassination?

Then why flat-out lie about Dr. Vincent Gray?

e.g.:

'Dr' Vincent Gray is no doctor. He has no PhD. He has no training in climate science. He's just a random person who signed up to review the IPCC reports and represents a group of backwards downunder deniers.

Vincent Gray has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Cambridge University. Gray is the author of The Greenhouse Delusion : A Critique of "Climate Change 2001", and a founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

He served the IPCC as an Expert Reviewer" from its first major assessment in 1990 until his resignation.

[D]rafts are circulated to specialists with significant expertise and publications in the field. A wide circulation process ensures contributions from independent experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines. Revised drafts are distributed for the second review to governments and to all authors and expert reviewers.

www.ipcc.ch...

Your intentional misrepresentations are unfounded.

Calling scientists of differing ideologies than your own "backwards" and "deniers" reflects your complete lack of critical, much less scientific, credibility.

Who cares what he thinks?

Well, you must, or you wouldn't be so desperate as to engage in outright deception.

I know its disappointing that all you can do is lie and misrepresent to bolster your ideological viewpoints, but that's life.

Your personal attacks and vitriol are almost as much contrary to the T & Cs as your "criticism" is to reality.

Since "all you can do" is repeat the AGW mantra that "the science is established," then you must lump-in many others into this pool, as the science is by no means "established."

e.g.:

Kyle Swanson, Univ. of Wisconsin – Milwaukee

It first needs to be emphasized that natural variability and radiatively forced warming are not competing in some no-holds barred scientific smack down as explanations for the behavior of the global mean temperature over the past century. Both certainly played a role in the evolution of the temperature trajectory over the 20th century, and significant issues remain to be resolved about their relative importance. However, the salient point, one that is oftentimes not clear in arguments about variability in the climate system, is that all else being equal, climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin.

www.realclimate.org...-686

And, e.g., Swanson's assessment of breaks in the "trend" you follow as if it were your god's word:

[W]hen the major modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability are synchronized, or resonate, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system appears to be thrown into a new state, marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability.

Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred.

pantherfile.uwm.edu...

Maybe even Gavin Schmidt qualifies for your knife in his back for questioning reliance on decadal prediction:

"Decadal predictions"
(Gavin A. Schmidt)

There has been a lot of discussion about decadal climate predictions in recent months. It came up as part of the ‘climate services’ discussion and was alluded to in the rather confused New Scientist piece a couple of weeks ago.
…
One thing that is of concern are statements that appear to assume that this is already a done deal – that good quality decadal forecasts are somehow guaranteed (if only a new center can be built, or if a faster computer was used).

www.realclimate.org...-1141

If you didn't spout such obvious tripe which can be shown to be erroneous so easily, then all would be well. Closed-mindedness is effectively closing your mind to evidence, I've seen almost every denier argument, and all are BS.

Up to this point, you've proven nothing but your own "closed mindedness" and inability to accept that AGW, and even GCM "modelling" are FAR from established.

Chris Landsea is a butthurt scientist who was a little peeved that his pet scientific position was not accepted by a lead IPCC scientist (Trenberth) who signified a different position from hisself when giving a talk.

Despite the media misrepresentations of Trenberth's authority when he misappropriated Landsea's well-established findings of lack of hurricane strength or prevalence correlation, Trenberth himself has attempted to distance himself from the IPCC's ( and your) ability to forecast (and despite your collective belief that warming is inevitable):

Dr Trenberth says, "there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
blogs.nature.com...

He goes on at length to elaborate on the inability of GCMs to accurately assess climate relative to ANY specific time.

the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

Moreover, despite YOUR protestations otherwise, he wryly acknowledges, even warns, that many of the faithful will accept global summaries as undeniable truth:

I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments ... . In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.

(See, id.)

Of course, you run off and repeat "the science is settled," anyway.

Without regard for science.

Or truth.

As for Trenberth's "authority" on hurricanes and AGW, he makes no conclusions, justs notes the existence of some "evidence."

Much like creationists.

Oh, and as for the rise in historical CO2 and evidence of warming periods, maybe Trenberth himself sums that up best:

"Correlation does not equal causation."

Id.

Landsea says no effect on hurricanes, others like Kerry Emanuel say there might well be (which Trenberth agrees with).

For one who tosses around terms implying solid conclusions, "you might well be" the leader of the "misrepresentation" crowd.

How sad that your frustration over your inability to support your conclusions that 'the AGW science is settled' lead you to resort to theater, name calling and outright lies.

The first response of the exposed fakir or charlatan is to attack the critic, rather than the (undenied, thus implicitly admitted) criticism.

jw

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Let's say for the sake of discussion that you are absolutely correct: the total amount of ice is fairly constant, but sea ice in the east is increasing while continental ice in the west is decreasing (I am not going into the semantics of how one determines east and west at one of the poles; it suffices to define west as opposite to east).

So if one side is increasing while the other side is decreasing, that would mean that the overall ice coverage is moving.

lol, when doing this in first person verbal form, I'd put this down to the magic of teaching. The strange way that words that are said morph into something else entirely in the aether between speaker and listener.

But it's actually in written form.

I'll let someone else see the issue here. But just to facilitate the process:

According to Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison, sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting.

"The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said.

Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE

I. Velicogna
Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.

Received 28 July 2009; accepted 3 September 2009; published 13 October 2009.

And smack, yeah, I note your concern yet again. I put a small number of users on ignore, just those who were so ignorant and boring as to be fairly irritating and pretty unlikeable.

I don't mind people who think other than myself. I actually do like RD, for instance, which is why he has never ever been on ignore. He has a charm about him. Indeed, I also like Essan and many others here. Even the Conster himself. None entirely agree with me and none have ever been put on ignore.

Anyway, guys, guys must go. I might pop in again when I get the urge and time allows. Catch ya around like a lemon. Ciao.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by melatonin]

I'll actually reply to j., as I'm pretty willing to accept my boo-boos and correct myself.

Yeah, my bad. I'm mixing him up with someone else. You can either suggest that is a lie, or you can take it as an honest mistake. Of course, I know which way you will want to go.

Vincent Gray is actually an ex-coal chemist and a bit of a deranged kook. You should read his comments on the IPCC report, they are hilarious. Never published one scientific article on climate change in his career.

"You have to face it. No model has ever successfully forecast any future climate in quantitative terms. It is surely because they incorporate only one of the many influences on the climate, increases in greenhouse gases. Why should any of us believe them?"

and:

"Insert before "Confidence" "Despite the total absence of any succedssful future climate prediction"

and again:

"Insert after "above" "but no evidence of any actual succesful prediction"

and yet again:

"Insert after ."(see Chapter 8)" "but not from a single successful forecast"

all by Vincent Gray. I found 7 of these all up. Methinks someone is trying to make a point.

The chief defect of this chapter is the total absence on the main greenhouse gas, water vapour. By comparison, the others are insignificant. The usual excuse for this blatant ommision is that the computer models are so defective that the only way they can deal with the undoubted importance of water vapour is to relegate it to the status of a "feedback", and remove its importance from public scurtiny

VINCENT GRAY

:facepalm:

Perseveration isn't a good sign in old age - I think something like 60% of the comments on the drafts were his, lol. In Kuhnian-style these old guys will soon die off and leave science with its new-fangled well-supported ideas. And I'm not gonna bother explaining why the dude is wrong, just go boil a super-kettle release a tonne of water vapour and tell me what you think will happen to the vapour within days. It's a feedback for a reason and has nothing to do with models.

But, overall, that's what I get for putting you on ignore and not really processing the information. The guy without the PhD who is often labelled with a PhD is actually Richard Courtney, he's another who likes to use 'expert reviewer' as if it gives some sort of kudos and was also associated with coal interests. Either way, Courtney or Gray, just the rants of an emeritus denier. He has no credibility.

You can still be a reviewer if you want, though, j. As I said, it's quite funny reading the comments of deniers on the drafts. You could add to the lulz.

Anyway, my bad. I assume that boo-boo now means the whole of climate science is a fraud, Gore wants to rape your wallets, I'm paid by Gorecom, and the rest of your post is so groundbreaking as to make me run away and will bring down a whole field of science via a random post on ATS. Ciao.

ABE: In taking the time to quickly accept my error, I now have a fun journey on a bus with a gang of schoolies. Such a sacrifice.

ABE2: you'll be glad to hear I made it unscathed and wedgieless.

ABE3: jeez, I just read the rest of your post. That's some right old crap there, j. You're for some reason ranting on about models. Yeah, they're not perfect. Did I say they were? I actually say the same thing about models as Trenberth on page 3 in this very thread - they are projections not predictions in many instances. But are still very useful, and can allow prediction in other instances. However, the point I made was that there is little discussion about the general issues - humans having an important influence on climate. It's well-established in science, nary a peep contrarywise. I'm outta here, j. This sort of scattergun denialism is tedious and you do actually bore me senseless. Redneck, well he has a charm that's hard not to like.

And are you actually trying to get me banned again? lol. You see, I have a few things I would like to say about that, but I generally know the T&C line fairly well. so I'll just point out that attempting to get other members scolded is rather pathetic. When Dr Vincent Gray signs up here, I'll treat him like any other member, until then he's a demented kook. And just to support that the old fool is a kook...

The global warming scam is the result of the widespread belief in a new religion, based on the deification of a nebulous entity, ‘The Environment’. ‘The Environment’ is an extension of the concept of ‘Nature’ which was held sacred by the Romantics, but it is a much more demanding deity, requiring constant and increasing sacrifices from humans. Environmentalism is just the latest attempt to find a substitute for the theory of evolution and it is paradoxical that it can be so widespread when next year (2009) is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his major work “The Origin of Species as the Result of Natural Selection”. All of the basic beliefs of Environmentalism are in direct conflict with contemporary understanding of the principles of Darwinism. Despite this fact, many scientists are supporters of Environmentalist dogmas and some are prepared to claim that they are compatible with Darwinism.

lolwut? So, environmentalists are creationists or something.

He's just another anti-science ideologue. The religion comment is enough for me. Doesn't seem to know his history of physical sciences very well, I wonder how many times he used the Arrhenius equation when working for the coal industry.

The most dishonest statement in the 4th Science Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al. 2007), is to be found in the Frequently Asked Questions section on page 104:

"A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75."

This statement makes no logical sense. If “the chaotic nature” of “weather” makes it “unpredictable” then how can changing its name to “climate” suddenly make it “a more manageable issue”? The question is supposed to be about forecasting, yet we are given an example suggesting that an “average” has “high confidence” when an individual figure has not — a completely irrelevant proposition. There is no guide on how future “averages” or individual figures for the age of death might be forecast. If the suggestion that future “climate” can be forecast when future “weather” cannot were true, one might ask why weather forecasters seem to be unable to find a way of suddenly removing all the “chaos”. The “analogy” is ridiculous. There is no suggestion that we can predict either the average age of death or that of an individual by any known method. There is no evidence whatsoever that the “chaos” associated with the weather has been eliminated or made “more manageable” merely because they changed the name to “climate”.

Vincent Gray 'The global warming scam'

I predict that next july will be warmer than this december in the UK. Wanna bet me? He can't even get his head around basic statistics and the concept of statistical regularity.

The ramblings of an old fool.

We thank Vincent for his diligence in wriritng so many comments. However, the comments would be much more useful if they were backed up by other than opinion.

IPCC editor

Again, and finally, guys, ciao.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by melatonin]

i can see where this is going: a consensus has to be reached and actions taken according to the plans of those who wrote pertaining studies.

ie. the description of a dictatorship


let's be clear, no matter who's right and to which extent, as soon as there's something to gain or a popular fad going, distortion will happen. let me give you one example.


people predicted drought in the 90s and now it's floods, but still AGW, sea levels rising, because kiribati is yet again sinking. i'm tired of all this but let's just say that only people who want to believe buy into it. why you ask? because there's something to gain. (=opportunism) once the incentive is lost, the rest will crumble.

Originally posted by melatonin
I answered this once already t'other day, but the site decided to fix stuff and reject my comment...it's not worth another hour of my time. A quick blast...

I feel your pain
I had a whole post prepared, replying to the attacks on my honesty and the rest, but I'll leave it I think. Everyone else can just read for themselves.

Just in case anyone is interested, author Whitley Strieber will be on coast to coast tonight, discussing how the planet is getting cooler, not hotter!

reply to post by Smack


let me add the destruction of our natural food supply.

reply to post by melatonin


The only shills and kooks are called "melatonitis ridiculis", these sort of people dissapear from Fragile Earth topics, only to try to please their masters Al Gorians when there is too much evidence that destroys their "religious ridiculis", then slowly they melt back with an unfounded claim in their avatar claiming that they are "doing stuff that matters" when all they are doing is trying to spread disinformation, and the lies their masters want to spread.

Of course such people never, ever can debate facts, instead they just ignore all the facts that refute their "religious ridiculis" and call everyone a "kook" and "being paid informants by oil companies" or some other ridiculous claims.

These sort of people will ALWAYS plague forums, and websites where people are trying to discuss the truth of Climate Change, and until the day their masters stop paying them, they won't stop their disinformation, campaign, and their labeling of everyone else but themselves as "kooks, and shills".....


[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

And BTW, the "Melatonintis ridiculis" who have never in their whole life been any sort of scientist want to refute the fact that several scientists from the IPCC have come forward to state that the IPCC, and the whole Global Warming/Climate Change issue has been politicized, and to the policymakers, the politicians, and the environmentalists "the science does not matter to them".

Those people who have come forward are people like Chris Landsea, who again the "melatonitis ridiculis" will try to label as a "coal, or oil kook, and paid informant" or some other stupidly ignorant comment, meanwhile the truth is...

Climate Scientist Chris Landsea Quits IPCC.


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

In his letter of resignation (see below) Landsea Blasts Politicized 'Preconceived Agendas' of IPCC.

[Landsea is one of the world's leading hurricane researchers, specializing in seasonal and climatic relationships of Atlantic tropical cyclones. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002. He was recipient of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Climate and Global Change for the period 1995-1996.]

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
............

www.tsaugust.org...




[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Then there is the fact that several REAL scientists who had the galls to stand up to the Al Gorians have been fired, and have lost funding for "doubting Anthropogenic Global Warming"....

How Scientists are Fired and Intimidated

The ice-core man
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, May 04, 2007

"...Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institutes director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowskis science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

nov55.com...

An original paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)

The price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers, even if you are at the top of your field.

What follows is an example of a scientific group that not only stopped a leading researcher from attending a meeting, but then—without discussing the evidence—applauds the IPCC and recommends urgent policies to reduce greenhouse gases. What has science been reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to official policy? If a leading researcher can’t speak his mind without punishment by exile, what chance would any up-and-coming researcher have? As Mitchell Taylor points out “It’s a good way to maintain consensus”.

And so it is. But it’s not science.

Mitchell Taylor is a Polar Bear researcher who has caught more polar bears and worked on more polar bear groups than any other, but he was effectively ostracized from the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) specifically because he has publicly expressed doubts that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions.

joannenova.com.au...

And then you have REAL scientists who try to bypass the disinformation from their masters, like Hansen, and these scientists present the truth such as...

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Humm...most of the warming had been occurring in areas FAR AWAY from large cities, and FAR AWAY from pollution?.... i wonder why?......