Study Shows Rapid Warming On the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

[flogger]

Got it, you think scientists are braying asses. Thank you Mr. science denier!

What would you know about verifiable 'science' given your complete inability ever to produce any that supports your faith ? :lamo

 

[Catawba]

What would you know about verifiable 'science' given your complete inability ever to produce any that supports your faith ? :lamo

Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.[1] Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".[2]

[B]In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4][5][/B]

Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nota bene]

The original Pittsburg Tribune article is not available, but an interview with geographer Harm de Blij is reprinted here: CagleCartoons.com - Bill Steigerwald (Geography Matters)

This was a good read several years ago: Why Geography Matters:Three Challenges Facing America: Climate Change, the ... - Harm de Blij - Google Books

 

[Catawba]

The original Pittsburg Tribune article is not available, but an interview with geographer Harm de Blij is reprinted here: CagleCartoons.com - Bill Steigerwald (Geography Matters)

This was a good read several years ago: Why Geography Matters:Three Challenges Facing America: Climate Change, the ... - Harm de Blij - Google Books

From your blog:

"As for the global warming part, the jury is out on that. A well-known climatologist named Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia recently made a very good point........"


The jury is not out. It hasn't been out since 2007. This is where you and I differ. I accept the world wide scientific consensus over this author who is trying to sell his book.

 

[ReformCollege]

There would be a lot more credibility to the Global Warning routine if Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and T. boone Pickens hadn't set themselves up to be poised to make a fortune off of the worldwide scare that never materialized. Not to mention a few lies and coverups by the liberal university participating "scientists."

You shouldn't judge a book by its cover. You shouldn't judge a theory by its politicians.

Even as a slight conservative, I understand the science is there, global warming is real its man-made and its dangerous. But as a realist, I understand that the damage caused from severely fossil fuels may be greater in the short term then the damage caused by global warming. Nothing isn't without its opportunity costs.

I also understand that solutions which utilize too many resources to be viable, or are not efficient, will never replace fossil fuels on a scale that will make a difference. Which is why I am in favor of heavily investing in nuclear and natural gas technologies, because they can make fossil fuels inferior. I see Solar panels working on a more micro scale rather then actual solar power plants but I think the clear emphasis is to find ways to make fossil fuels completely unnecessary.

 

[flogger]

Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.[1] Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".[2]

[B]In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4][5][/B]

Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same old same old and still no scientific proof whatsoever. Ever wonder why niether you nor your beloved 'consensus' can find it ? :roll:

 

[zgoldsmith23]

If the scientific consensus since 2007 (which considered empirical evidence) has not convinced you, nothing will. You are science denier.

Well, to be fair, Einstein was technically a "science denier" when he overturned Newtonian Physics on large scales. However, that's the great thing about science: you can overturn it if you make the proper observations and predictions and stand up to the challenge.

Proof will do just fine thanks :lol:

Proof of scientific consensus has already been provided to you and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Uhhh Ohhh. Someone exhibited scientific ignorance by calling for scientific 'proof.' Let's leave 'proofs' to Logic and Mathematics (the realms in which they dwell).

Look, I can tell you this: you have no idea what you are arguing about or who you are arguing with. Don't set up strawmen and then think you won.

People may want more fuel efficient cars. They may want more alternative energy - nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, hydro, etc. They may want updated appliance, windows, light bulbs, etc that save energy in your typical home or business. In fact, there are tons of ideas on how we can better save energy and create cleaner energy. I can tell you one thing almost no one is saying: the president can't take his ****ing airplane on vacation. Well, except for republicans who listen to too much talk radio and can't form their own argument so they use the idiocy they hear there.

This. Just because it's so great.

 

[nota bene]

From your blog:

"As for the global warming part, the jury is out on that. A well-known climatologist named Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia recently made a very good point........"


The jury is not out. It hasn't been out since 2007. This is where you and I differ. I accept the world wide scientific consensus over this author who is trying to sell his book.

If you read more closely, (1) the original article was published in the Pittsburg Tribune, not on a blog, (2) the pub date was 2005, and Why Geography Matters was published in February of 2007, meaning that it was written prior to 2007.

 

[Catawba]

Well, to be fair, Einstein was technically a "science denier" when he overturned Newtonian Physics on large scales. However, that's the great thing about science: you can overturn it if you make the proper observations and predictions and stand up to the challenge.

Einstein did not reject basic science concepts.

"In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4][5]"

 

[Catawba]

If you read more closely, (1) the original article was published in the Pittsburg Tribune, not on a blog, (2) the pub date was 2005, and Why Geography Matters was published in February of 2007, meaning that it was written prior to 2007.

So it was written before scientific consensus on AGW meaning its irrelevant.

 

[code1211]

Got it, you think scientists are braying asses. Thank you Mr. science denier!

Not all scientists. Just those who live in the echo chamber of the AGW theocracy.

Most scientist present a hypothesis, either prove it or disprove it and move along to another consideration. In this area, though, they present a hypothesis, prove it's wrong, make excuses to deny their own results and present the same hypothesis again. It is really quite amazing.

If they were actual real scientists, they would have produced something that was usable and real instead the science fiction they try to peddle as science.

 

[code1211]

On the matter of choosing time periods:
It is possible to pick time periods which satisfy AGW as well. Would that be evidence for AGW? No, not by itself. Basically, you would have to defend your choice of time periods, if it were to be valid at all. In your case, you can't choose 2000 years divided into two parts because

• warming could have been occurring during the first 1000 (say 2 degrees)
• cooling could have been occurring during 80% of the second 1000 period (say by 1 degree), and then been reversed by our human activity at that 80% mark (say 2 degrees warmer for net 1 degrees warming in the second millennium).
• Then, someone like you could come along and dismiss that last 20% of the time, and based it on the arbitrary choice of two sequential 1000 year periods leading up to today.

The trouble with such a scenario would be that if it is 2 degrees warmer in the last 200 years, that equals the warming that happened over the first 1000 years. This SHOULD result in someone saying "Wow! we've had quite a powerful warming trend". But, if we follow your intellectual lead, we end up ignoring important information. Choosing those 1000 year periods like that is completely irrelevant, so whoever convinced you to do that should be ignored as a source of credible analysis. Such people make their followers look foolish.

The exact same problem can arise with the choosing of the 400/200 year time periods. It is less likely to occur there, but it is still possible. It is less likely because it more closely coincides with mankind's significant output of greenhouse gasses. Nevertheless, there could be a natural cooling or warming during any parts of it which could skew the matter in favor of either viewpoint. No matter which one it favored, it really wouldn't be evidence. It is again irrelevant, and as such should make you question the source of the notion to use such analysis.

On the matter of the most recent decade:
You claimed that temperatures had decreased or stayed level during the last decade. I attempted to partly divine how you thought that was relevant to the issue, but apparently got it wrong. Nothing you have said now explains why you think it is relevant at all. But, I can tell you that it would be, again, irrelevant (by itself), so it really doesn't matter.

On the matter of what you would view as proof



I don't understand why you would think it was relevant that it would be warmer now than it ever was during 'this interglacial'. Can you think for yourself of scenarios where it might be cooler now, and yet we would still be causing warming?

Please be more specific: How should they prove that the cause of 'any warming' is the result of CO2? What would prove this to you?

You very last statement may not, again, be relevant.

If your standard of evidence is that they accurately predict how warm it will be in 100 years, and then we wait to see how accurate they are, then you are asking us to wait until warming would be even more of a problem than it might be if we acted now. If this is your requirement, then you are essentially saying that even if it is true, it is something that cannot be proven to your satisfaction, right now. Which is essentially what the guy said which started this whole conversation between you and I. "If the scientific consensus doesn't convince you, nothing will".

Let's put it a different way. Where ever I might choose to go or whenever I might choose to make the study, Gravity on the surface of earth acts pretty much the same way. I can tell stories about flying dragons or UFO's or levitation, but in the end, in the real and actual world, Gravity always exists. Whenever I have the misfortune to get a view of my descending behind, it is also evident that Gravity always wins.

To prove the existence of something that actually exists is not a real tough assignment. There are plenty of things that we cannot see that have effects that we can see, can measure, can record the variations that occur as results of the interactions and can use to make predictions of future variation due to future interactions.

Complex interrelationships, like powered flight, involve the usable implementation of the predictable cause and effect relationships between air, gravity, shapes, propulsion and all the rest that make a hunk of metal that has no business leaving the ground fly dependably and with certainty at 35,000 feet.

This is not the case with AGW. It does not act like powered flight or a virus or bacteria or a chemical reaction or magnetism or radiation or anything else that science has so accurately presented to us. It does not act like anything at all. It acts, in truth, like something that does not exist. It provides no basis for prediction. It does not respond to exterior influences and does influence other events. It is for all intents and purposes, an imagined and mythical construct.

For you to convince me that AGW exists, you must show me that it exists.

You are free to proceed.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Not all scientists. Just those who live in the echo chamber of the AGW theocracy...

No scientific body related to the study of climate has disagreed with the premise of AGW since 2007. It's here and it's real. Bleating from the peanut gallery that it aint so has no merit.

 

[code1211]

No scientific body related to the study of climate has disagreed with the premise of AGW since 2007. It's here and it's real. Bleating from the peanut gallery that it aint so has no merit.

Proof from the "Scientists" would be nice to find.

Can you produce any?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Einstein did not reject basic science concepts.

"In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4][5]"

Classical mechanics was the well-known branch of physics up til Einstein's relativistic mechanics. There's healthy denial and unhealthy denial.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Proof from the "Scientists" would be nice to find.

Can you produce any?

Proof is available in maths or religion, not in science, as you would know were you not a denier cultist.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Proof from the "Scientists" would be nice to find.

Can you produce any?

Proofs are for logic and mathematics, not the realm of science. Pull your shirt down, your ignorance is showing.

 

[code1211]

Proof is available in maths or religion, not in science, as you would know were you not a denier cultist.

You think that proof is available in Religion?

I think I'm starting to see your problem in this.

If you have faith, proof is not required. If you need proof, faith is not yours.

 

[code1211]

Proofs are for logic and mathematics, not the realm of science. Pull your shirt down, your ignorance is showing.

Why is it that those who claim to love science accept notions on faith as a matter of course?

There is very little about science that cannot be proven with math. There is almost nothing about religion that can be proven with math. Which discipline is more likely the home to your "science" of AGW?

I see your avatar is Dr. James Hansen. Is he also of the mind that science cannot be supported with proof? Gravity? Physics?

Einstein seemed pretty obsessed with proof and careful to acknowledge the feebleness of the understanding that even he possessed. I suppose, given this weakness in his approach, you would call him a denier. The quotes from Einstein below are interesting in light of your determined adherance to the feeble notion of AGW. i don't recall his exact words, but Einstein was pretty clear that if everybody in the world said he was right and one individual proved him wrong, he was wrong.

As a doubter of a notion that has not been proven, all I need to do is doubt. As a proponent of the notion, it is incumbent upon you to prove your case. If that involves the suspension of curiosity, questions or logic, then so be it. Your proof will stand or fall on strength of its own foundation of facts.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"I do not like to state an opinion on a matter unless I know the precise facts."

 

[Catawba]

Not all scientists. Just those who live in the echo chamber of the AGW theocracy.

Most scientist present a hypothesis, either prove it or disprove it and move along to another consideration. In this area, though, they present a hypothesis, prove it's wrong, make excuses to deny their own results and present the same hypothesis again. It is really quite amazing.

If they were actual real scientists, they would have produced something that was usable and real instead the science fiction they try to peddle as science.

Since 2007, there has been NO DISSENT of AGW theory by ANY SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION WITH NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING. Zero, zip, Nada!

 

[Catawba]

Classical mechanics was the well-known branch of physics up til Einstein's relativistic mechanics. There's healthy denial and unhealthy denial.

The greenhouse effect has withstood about a century of scientific scrutiny.

 

[Catawba]

Proof from the "Scientists" would be nice to find.

Can you produce any?

Its already been explained to you that in science, absence of successful challenge is as close to proof as you get. And there has been an absence of successful challenge to the AGW theory since 2007.

 

[code1211]

Since 2007, there has been NO DISSENT of AGW theory by ANY SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION WITH NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING. Zero, zip, Nada!

When do the Kyoto Accords go into effect globally?

 

[code1211]

Its already been explained to you that in science, absence of successful challenge is as close to proof as you get. And there has been an absence of successful challenge to the AGW theory since 2007.

You may assert that AGW actually exists or you may assert that there are UFO's that visit our planet regularly and actually are in orbit right now, but there is a cloaking device that keeps them absolutely undetectable to any kind of tracking device known to man.

Challenge either of these. It's pointless. Both are presented in a way that removes any possibility of falsifiability.

If something is so ridiculous that it cannot be proven and cannot be disproven, then challenging it is folly.

There is one fact that is unassailable in this science. It has never been proven and all predictions made using AGW Science have been laughably inaccurate.

 

[code1211]

The greenhouse effect has withstood about a century of scientific scrutiny.

With your familiarity with this scrutiny, you should be able to reveal for us the formula that states the rate of diminishing effect of additional CO2 at the concentrations currently in our atmosphere.

Whatcha got?