Thread: East Antarctica now losing Ice

Originally Posted by JoMe

In view of the e-mails that came to light I am now having a hard time believing anything these so called global warming zealots are preaching. And I suspect they are going to have a hard time selling this to the rest of the world as well.

They have a serious credibility problem they need to overcome if they are going to move forward.

What exactly is zealotry in climate science? Do you have any specific examples?

Do you think that the coal lobby industry that was nailed for actual fraud concerning climate science has the same credibility problem?

Do you know/understand any of the context of the hacked emails from CRU?

Andrew

Originally Posted by kramer

It looks like possible fraud to me. Hopefully the publishing of this will get the 'adjusters' to explain why they did what they did.

Kramer

Turns out it is the NA Climate Science Coalition (which it turns out does not actually staff any climate scientists... WTF) that is lying about this whole thing. They have known for two years why the adjusments were made, and that they are legitimate. They are simply another hack denialist group that spends their days and money not doing any research but figuring out ways to defraud the public.

Hardly surprising.

NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist ? Hot Topic

NIWA - NIWA confirms temperature rise

This is so ridiculous, and its a real shame that actual working scientists are being forced to waste their time defending such baseless and dishonest accusations from people who have neither the credentials nor integrity to deserve any attention from the media.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

What exactly is zealotry in climate science? Do you have any specific examples?

Do you think that the coal lobby industry that was nailed for actual fraud concerning climate science has the same credibility problem?

Do you know/understand any of the context of the hacked emails from CRU?

Andrew

yes, of course, its all about 'context' you see...I can read thank you.:rolleyes:

Zealotry is when you decide to turn away from your scientific discipline and become dogmatic; denying contrary evidence, defaming contrary evidence based on nothing other than disagreement, misconstruing, misstating, discarding inconvenient facts or worthy suppositions based in/on science no more/less questionable or not as your own, efforts to exclude other opinion and sppting witch-hunts vis a vis ‘opposition’ positions and people whom sppt. it.

I spent 1 and a ½ hours reading as many of those e mails as I could Andrew.

No I didn’t read them all and I am sure there are some that may in fact be discussing something no more nefarious than stern defense of an outlook or positions, but its way beyond that as well. They have and this is not the first time we have seen this before have become ideologically driven. That’s why sppt for global warming, oh wait ‘climate change’ is withering.


Like the other scenarios, this cannot stand on its own merit there fore all contrary positions will be if not destroyed, then denigrated or ignored. The people bomb, acid rain, ice ages….please. Thts not science, that’s willful ignorance and a betrayal of the very principals they pay lip service too.

Originally Posted by Imperator

yes, of course, its all about 'context' you see...I can read thank you.:rolleyes:

So why do you take it all out of context?

Zealotry is when you decide to turn away from your scientific discipline and become dogmatic; denying contrary evidence, defaming contrary evidence based on nothing other than disagreement, misconstruing, misstating, discarding inconvenient facts or worthy suppositions based in/on science no more/less questionable or not as your own, efforts to exclude other opinion and sppting witch-hunts vis a vis ‘opposition’ positions and people whom sppt. it.

Do you have any specific examples?

I spent 1 and a ½ hours reading as many of those e mails as I could Andrew.

why? its not as if you could make any sense of them.... or were you just looking for something to cherry pick without having any understanding of the context?

No I didn’t read them all and I am sure there are some that may in fact be discussing something no more nefarious than stern defense of an outlook or positions, but its way beyond that as well. They have and this is not the first time we have seen this before have become ideologically driven. That’s why sppt for global warming, oh wait ‘climate change’ is withering.

Only in america its withering, and the reason is due to industry lobby groups deliberately misrepresenting and confusing the science, or in this case, making conclusions based on snippets of emails taken way out of context by poeple who are not qualified.

Like the other scenarios, this cannot stand on its own merit there fore all contrary positions will be if not destroyed, then denigrated or ignored. The people bomb, acid rain, ice ages….please. Thts not science, that’s willful ignorance and a betrayal of the very principals they pay lip service too.

Its terribly disappointing how infected you have become by the efforts of paid industry lobbyists to deliberately confuse you.

The only evidence i have ever seen of fraud and dishonesty comes directly from the paid industry funded denialists groups, and this is all proven fraud and lies, as per my response to Kramer above.

The only dogma i see comes from you and others like you who dont' look at the science and only listen to the denialists.

nah, It's just parting it on the side.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Along with west Antarctica satellite observations are showing a net loss of ice in east Antarctica, which has been stable up until now.

This could still be short term variability and not the beginning of a long term trend, but given what is happening to ice all over the world, this is worrisome.



Global Warming: Once Stable East Antarctica Losing Ice - TIME

East Antarctica is now losing ice

Andrew

Interestingly enough, Mars is melting too.

*frowns and wonders...*

just as an aside...

i wonder how i'd be received if, on one 'o Jviehe's many "tribute" threads to fallen US soldiers blown up by IEDs, i said somethin' like this;

"good, now there's one less roadside bomb and the streets are safer for all!"

imma sure that the TS and many on USPO would fly into rage...so why do folks do it routinely on the "Enviornmental Issues" forum, when the author, Andrewl, be a serious poster?

the smart arse comments that go up on threads like this be tiresome.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Tautog

Interestingly enough, Mars is melting too.

yes, another long ago debunked denialist canard.

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

please, respond to the science.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

yes, another long ago debunked denialist canard.

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

please, respond to the science.

Andrew

Mars' southern ice cap is shrinking and has lost billions of tons of carbon dioxide over just the past 4 Martian years, says Geissler. The team's simulations suggest that the planet's albedo-induced warming may be responsible for as much as 60 percent of that loss.

No Escape: There's Global Warming On Mars Too - Science News

"Suggest"
"May be"
"as much as"

You could drive a truck through those wiggle words. Not to mention that programers wrote a simulation program for this and that the total amount of warming from this simulation suggests it may be as much as 60%.

Kramer

Originally Posted by kramer

"Suggest"
"May be"
"as much as"

You could drive a truck through those wiggle words. Not to mention that programers wrote a simulation program for this and that the total amount of warming from this simulation suggests it may be as much as 60%.

Kramer

So now honesty amongst scientists is your gripe?

The sun cannot be used to explain warming on earth so why would it explain warming on mars? Well, it turns out that the dust on mars offers us a much better explanation.

BTW, your NZ story really turned out to be more lies coming from the denialist crowd. See above.

Andrew

What it boils down to is that those responsible for the AGW hype have been exposed as political scientists, damaging the credibility of any scientist seeking to debate public policy.

If the discussion doesn't involve energy independence for the individual, its a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

So now honesty amongst scientists is your gripe?

Not at all. My gripe is that the claim of albedo forcing isn't that strong.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The sun cannot be used to explain warming on earth

The sun is the main reason for the warmth of the earth.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

so why would it explain warming on mars?

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience

In addition, if you look at the last 500 million years of the earth, there is practically zero correlation of high CO2 levels creating warmer temperatures. In fact, the data shows just the opposite, when CO2 levels were high, temps were low and when CO2 levels were low, temps were high. CO2 is a very weak GHG.

Even Gore recently lowered the power of CO2 to about 40% of the recent warming.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Well, it turns out that the dust on mars offers us a much better explanation.

A simulation suggests that dust may have added up to 60% of the warming? Right...
I'd love to read the comments of that simulation that was written for this. Too bad they probably deleted that program (or edited out the damning comments).

Originally Posted by Andrewl

BTW, your NZ story really turned out to be more lies coming from the denialist crowd. See above.

Andrew

Yeah, I saw that. If true, it's disappointing.

Speaking of lying, what about the comment from a professor who said another climate scientist wrote to him that "we need to get rid of the MWP?" What about Mann's 1st hockey stick where M&M were obstructed by Mann and others when they were looking at it? Are you ok with this type of open science? What about the comments in the emails to delete emails/data and obstruct FOI request? Any problem with this?

The bottom line is, ALL of the data, code, emails, etc. at ALL major climate centers (GISS, NOAA, IPCC, CRU, etc.) needs to be made public for a year or two for public review. Those emails are damaging to your side, and even if they never were made public, we would still need to have full access to all data, code, etc, from all major climate centers, And I thought I read in one of those emails (I'm paraphrasing) that the IPCC is exempt from FOI requests. Is this true? If it is, then this is bullshit. Do you agree?

We need to know the truth before we let the DNC and Obama sign America's future away.

Kramer

wonder if anyone has been looking under the ice there ?

might have volcanos down south too.