Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland

[Hawker]

p4man - bind's answer means that you are wasting your time with evidence.  He will not accept it.

[1714143695]

1714143695

[1714143695]

1714143695

[1714143695]

1714143695

[1714143695]

1714143695

[1714143695]

1714143695

[P4man]

by your posts.

Your reading skills leave much to be desired then.

BTW, who made you believe the earth is billions of years old?

scientists who are not infallible. They could be wrong. But then my belief that the earth is billions of years old will do nothing to affect my sovereignty, freedom, rights, or wealth, and I am certainly not forcing you to act on it at the point of a weapon or threat of being caged.

So when it suits you, you seem to see no reason to question the scientific consensus, but when you think it would threaten your religion, you refuse to even look in to it. Thats a pretty good definition of irrational, stupid and being blind. A true flat earther.

[Bind]

by your posts.

Your reading skills leave much to be desired then.

BTW, who made you believe the earth is billions of years old?

scientists who are not infallible. They could be wrong. But then my belief that the earth is billions of years old will do nothing to affect my sovereignty, freedom, rights, or wealth, and I am certainly not forcing you to act on it at the point of a weapon or threat of being caged.

So when it suits you, you seem to see no reason to question the scientific consensus, but when you think it would threaten your religion, you refuse to even look in to it. Thats a pretty good definition of irrational, stupid and being blind. A true flat earther.

Please show me a group of scientists, whos numbers are rapidly increasing every day, who disputes the scientific consensus that the earth is billions of years old. Please keep in mind that bible/religion-based "science" does not count.

To insinuate that I disbelieve all science and scientific consensus to fraudulently attempt to prove your side of the debate is, at best, disingenuous, and at most, a blantant fabrication.

... and since its been irrationally mentioned by a few people in a few threads, I believe the earth it an orb (roundish), I believe in Newton's law of universal gravitation, and I believe in Eintein's Theory of Relativity, and quite a few more...

I am not religious. If you want to call freedom, liberty, and preservation of every human beings birth rights as a religion, so be it. I stand proudly guilty.

Lastly, no one, nor any groups, have any right to tell anyone else what to do so long as no one is infringing on the birth rights of another. Same goes for their property rights. Non-universal scientific consensus, supposition, and conjecture are not forms of nor proof of infringement.

To believe otherwise, for any reason, is to believe others have the supreme right to rule over you and your property, thus you are a slave... plain and simple servitude where you allow them to use thesis, antithesis, and synthesis psychology to rule and control you, your wealth, and your property. Where you are actually begging to be enslaved and ruled over. If thats your wish, go for it. However people like me will fight to the death against it, as oh so many have done in our history to give us the few freedoms we do still have to enjoy. I can take care of all myself and my families needs, act responsibly, and dont need anyone else doing it for me in the name of "saving the planet", which is pure bullshit.

[P4man]

Being unable to distinguish between politics and science and shrugging off overwhelming scientific evidence, not on the basis of science or rational thought,  but only because its conclusions appear to threaten your deep convictions, puts them squarely in the religious corner, along with creationism and a 4000 year old earth flat earth orbited by the sun.

There is no point in arguing with such people, as no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince someone who will gladly sacrifice science and reason itself on its religious altar.

[bb113]

What the IPCC actually says about global cooling:

Not all theories or early results are verifi ed by later analysis.
In the mid-1970s, several articles about possible global cooling
appeared in the popular press, primarily motivated by analyses
indicating that Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperatures had
decreased during the previous three decades (e.g., Gwynne,
1975). In the peer-reviewed literature, a paper by Bryson
and Dittberner (1976) reported that increases in carbon
dioxide (CO2) should be associated with a decrease in global
temperatures. When challenged by Woronko (1977), Bryson and
Dittberner (1977) explained that the cooling projected by their
model was due to aerosols (small particles in the atmosphere)
produced by the same combustion that caused the increase in
CO2. However, because aerosols remain in the atmosphere only
a short time compared to CO2, the results were not applicable
for long-term climate change projections. This example of a
prediction of global cooling is a classic illustration of the selfcorrecting
nature of Earth science. The scientists involved were
reputable researchers who followed the accepted paradigm of
publishing in scientifi c journals, submitting their methods and
results to the scrutiny of their peers (although the peer-review
did not catch this problem), and responding to legitimate
criticism.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (page 98)


So, at the time there was evidence for global cooling due to aerosols and the media played this up like the alarmists they are. This did not play out, additional info was considered to explain why it didn't play out, and so the theory is now dead.

[bb113]

And for all of you claiming you are posting "scientific evidence"... Wikipedia quotes and unreferenced pictures do not constitute scientific evidence. It is clear to me that you are all using consensus as a proxy for evidence. This is OK as long as you realize what you are doing. As soon as you start confusing the two, you are being bad bad bad.

[bb113]

Seriously, Al Gore bought a house on the coast so AGW must be false. The oil companies are funding propaganda campaigns so therefore AGW must be true. I see this kind of reasoning on both sides (showing you how worthless it is). It makes me laugh but then I think how scary it is that people are still just arguing about which elders to trust.

[Hawker]

And for all of you claiming you are posting "scientific evidence"... Wikipedia quotes and unreferenced pictures do not constitute scientific evidence. It is clear to me that you are all using consensus as a proxy for evidence. This is OK as long as you realize what you are doing. As soon as you start confusing the two, you are being bad bad bad.

Do you ever feel like its watching a religious debate?  Both sides go on and on forever and neither will ever listen to the other.

[bb113]

I used to have roomate for a bit who believed in god (I'm agnostic). Every other night we would get drunk and have the same debate. This went on for 2 months and in the end neither of us had been convinced of anything. I guess it was like rhetoric practice or something.

[P4man]

What the IPCC actually says about global cooling:

Not all theories or early results are verifi ed by later analysis.
In the mid-1970s, several articles about possible global cooling
appeared in the popular press,

Duh!
I quoted from the national science board and explicitly said if you look at authoritative scientific publications of the time, and not popular press articles.

Fact is, in so far there was a scientific consensus back in 1972, it was most definitely not diametrically opposed to the current one as blind was trying to say.  If anything they seem in complete agreement.

So, at the time there was evidence for global cooling due to aerosols and the media played this up like the alarmists they are. This did not play out, additional info was considered to explain why it didn't play out, and so the theory is now dead.

The theory is not dead; afaik the IPCC reports still mention anthropogenic aerosols as a major source of negative forcing.

[bb113]

Here is a good figure:


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf (pg 136)
Captcha for uploading image=Carbon-copy

I looks like they left out negative "natural forcings" though.

So what is radiative forcing:

"Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in Watts per square meter (W/m2)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Not sure if I really get it yet.

[Schleicher]

I looks like they left out negative "natural forcings" though.

Looks like they assume that effects from other natural processes are averaging out over the years.

[Bind]

Being unable to distinguish between politics and science and shrugging off overwhelming scientific evidence, not on the basis of science or rational thought,  but only because its conclusions appear to threaten your deep convictions, puts them squarely in the religious corner, along with creationism and a 4000 year old earth flat earth orbited by the sun.

There is no point in arguing with such people, as no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince someone who will gladly sacrifice science and reason itself on its religious altar.

Right back at ya.

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

Are you a religious freak adhering to the global warming scam like a christian clutching the Word of God despite the lack of overwhelming scientific evidence it exists ?

There is no point in arguing with such people, as no lack of scientific evidence will ever convince someone who will gladly sacrifice a lack of science and reason itself on its religious altar.


 

Fact is, in so far there was a scientific consensus back in 1972, it was most definitely not diametrically opposed to the current one as blind was trying to say.  If anything they seem in complete agreement.

I agree the faked man made global cooling and warming hoaxes are identical, but not in the way you might think.

[P4man]

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

What thousands of professionals would that be?
Dentists dont count.

Here, FYI:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i )
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii ) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

I dare say you would find more scientists in support of creationism than disagreeing with AGW.

[bb113]

I looks like they left out negative "natural forcings" though.

Looks like they assume that effects from other natural processes are averaging out over the years.

Here is the caption:

FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these
radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or
natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the
industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause signifi cant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour,
surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any signifi cance between 1750 and
2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a
cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective
value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.)

So you may be right, I just gotta read more.

I always thought this was a ridiculous logo:



But maybe they're right. We should just paint the world white, dye the seas, increase surface albedo... I wonder if anyone has looked at how using solar panels at a huge scale would affect albedo. It would have to be a positive forcing right?

[Bind]

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

What thousands of professionals would that be?
Dentists dont count.

I will take your answer as a "yes" to the question of whether or not its your "religion".

You simply can not deny many scientists disagree with the man made global cooling and warming hoaxes.

You disagree with these professionals and scientists just like I disagree with the ones aligning themselves with the globalist agenda. My agenda is quite clear ... preservation of the nation state, freedom, liberty, sovereignty, and the money we work hard to make that used to allow us a good quality of life.

Diametrically opposed to that is the agenda of those you stand religiously behind and defend, who are hell bent on taking away from you; your; nation state, freedom, liberty, sovereignty, and the money you work hard to make thats used to allow you a good quality of life.

I am sorry but you can not seriosuly expect me to write up a list of thousands of professionals and scientists disagreeing with man made global warming and/or cooling. You are simply grasping at straws. Go google if you truly dispute it. But we both know you dont dispute their existance.

I dare say you would find more scientists in support of creationism than disagreeing with AGW.

I have no doubt those with an agenda say there are more scientist who think there is global warming and/or cooling than not, but is it more about the numbers of scientists than whether or not they are accurate ?

If I have the money, power, influence, and/or prestige to be awarded enough to convince many scientists of something, does that make it true ?  

Hell alot of scientists have admitted they simply dont know but have erred on the side of caution and influence from/or others "work". IMO they should not be taken seriously, while many more disagree with it entirely.

Imagine you are a scientist with a family and a career to look after.....

What if your funding would evaporate if you "didnt get on board" ?

What if you were warned no to "rock the boat"?

What if you were threatened directly with marginalization, career ruination, removal, dismissal, forced retirement, disollution of your position, or loss of seniority ?

See this science thing is strange. Usually consensus is easily and quickly formed based on experimentation, observation and evidence. I have heard of nothing that has split the scientific community apart more than global cooling/warming hoax, except maybe for a bit the planet, now celestial body, Pluto.

That tells me everything I need to know.

[bb113]

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

What thousands of professionals would that be?
Dentists dont count.

Here, FYI:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i )
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii ) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

I dare say you would find more scientists in support of creationism than disagreeing with AGW.

Are you guys considering the difference between AGW and catastrophic AGW?

Materials and Methods
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset, except in calculations of the top 50, 100, and 200 researchers’ group membership.

...

To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers.

...

Regarding the influence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here. However, citation analysis research suggests that the potential of these patterns to influence results is likely to decline as sample size of researchers, possible cliques, and papers analyzed for citations considered increases (22, 25–28).

Tables don't show up the same way they preview....

[bb113]

The PI has had an interesting career. He was one of the Global Cooling researchers back in the 70's and died a couple of months after that paper was published:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

[P4man]

You simply can not deny many scientists disagree with the man made global cooling and warming hoaxes.

Actually I do.  You didnt say many, you said thousands. so, who are those "thousands" of respectable climate scientists that are not thinly disguised oil lobbyists with a PhD in econometrics ? You said it, you must have a source?

Have you even seen the poll I linked? Or is the national academy of sciences is perhaps not a credible source of information?

You disagree with these professionals and scientists just like I disagree with the ones aligning themselves with the globalist agenda.

Its completely different for a host of reasons, but let me reiterate just the most important one: you do not disagree with a scientific consensus because you actually believe the science is wrong,  basing that on facts or reason, but because you desperately WANT the science to be wrong because you dont know how to fit it in your political agenda if it is indeed right.  Thats the key difference between you and me. You "think" like a religious extremist who's faced with carbon dating evidence. The evidence be damned, it cant be right. It has to be wrong!

My agenda is quite clear ...

Yes, and its clearly not finding truth. Its covering up scientific evidence.

If I have the money, power, influence, and/or prestige to be awarded enough to convince many scientists of something, does that make it true ?  

So you are saying its as likely 97% of all climate scientists are bribed by.. who exactly? and they have been bribed for decades now with no one speaking up, rather than the possibility big oil "convinced" 1 or 2% of the less authoritative scientists to argue for their case?  Really? What happened when science began uncovering evidence of smoking causing cancer?

Hell alot of scientists have admitted they simply dont know but have erred on the side of caution and influence from/or others "work".

I call bullshit on this too. Prove me wrong, show me your source.

I have heard of nothing that has split the scientific community apart more than global cooling/warming hoax,

Funny, because in reality there are precious few research area's were the scientific consensus is this strong. Of course, thats only if you actually listen to scientists and not get your information from some bonehead fake moon landing conspiracy websites where I suppose you get yours. Let me guess: Alex Jones?

That tells me everything I need to know.

You mean, it gives you the excuse to ignore the facts.

[bb113]

P4 man please read my post that included the actual charts and part of the methods section from the study your abstract was from. It was not a poll.