# Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice



## Sinatra (May 29, 2009)

Leonard Weinstein ScD, former member of NASA and current member of the National Institute of Aerospace, elaborates on the actual temperature fluctuations and the resulting impacts on Arctic and Greenland ice cover - and deflates the CO2 connection utilized by the Global Warmers.

In his paper Weinstein makes clear that the Antarctic is actually cooling and sea ice formation is expanding - but the focus of the paper is primarily on the Arctic regions.

One of the more interesting aspects of Weinstein's work was his blasting of the more recent temperature graphs that are so often utilized to display dramatic rising in Arctic temperatures - such as this example:







My goodness that does look dramatic!!!

But of course, that graph has a starting point at a low temperature period for that region that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. (When all those environut "Impending Ice Age" stories were taking place)

When one shows a far more responsible scientific temperature graph going back to the 1800s, we see today's Arctic temperatures in a far less alarming light:






Here we see quite varied fluctuations in Arctic temperatures over a hundred-plus time span - and note that by far the warmest period was in fact the 1940s - nearly 70 years ago!!  Current arctic temperatures are similar to what they were in the early 1960's, cooler than the were in the 1950's, and far cooler than they were in the 1930's and 
1940's.  The one time period when temperatures were dramatically cooler was the end of the 19th Century when the earth was coming out of what is commonly called a "Little Ice Age."  (Which some in the scientific community are stating we are heading into another such phase:  Russian Scientist Predicts 'mini Ice Age' - Due to low solar activity - Softpedia  Weinstein also notes that the largest jump in recent Arctic temperatures occured at the turn of the 20th Century, long before the more current increases in man-made CO2 levels took place.

If one utilizes an even longer time period of Arctic temperatures, we realize today's "alarming" temperatures are in fact on the cooler side of normal.  Weinstein makes the quite plausible claim that the more popular current temperature maps that take a brief and selective view of current temperatures are nothing more than pre-determined scientific arlarmism:








The Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice « the Air Vent


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2009)

Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice04.06.09 Additional imagery and background information for this story can be found here.

 This data visualization from the AMSR-E instrument on the Aqua satellite show the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, which occurred on Feb. 28, 2009. Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio
> Larger image

 During the winter, winds and currents push some of the thick, multi-year ice out of the Arctic Ocean. In the past, that thicker ice was replenished by new ice that survived several summer melt seasons. Credit: Chuck Fowler and Jim Maslanik, University of Colorado, and NSIDC
> View animated GIF

 Maps show the relative age of Arctic sea ice at the end of February 2009 and over time. Thin, first-year ice is the predominant type covering the Arctic Ocean this winter. Credit: Chuck Fowler and Jim Maslanik, University of Colorado, and NSIDC
> Larger image

 The decline in multiyear (including second-year ice) sea ice coverage has also been measured by NASA&#8217;s QuikScat satellite from 1999 to 2009. Each field shows the coverage on January 1 of that year. There is a 40 percent drop in coverage between 2005 and 2007. Credit: Ron Kwok, NASA/JPL
> Larger image The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.

Arctic sea ice works like an air conditioner for the global climate system. Ice naturally cools air and water masses, plays a key role in ocean circulation, and reflects solar radiation back into space. In recent years, Arctic sea ice has been declining at a surprising rate.

Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).

Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent.

NASA - Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2009)

"If current climate models from the IPCC included data from ice dynamics in Greenland, the sea level rise estimated during this century could be twice as high as what they are currently projecting," she said.

New Greenland Ice Sheet Data Will Impact Climate Change Models - UB NewsCenter


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2009)

The world's second largest ice cap may be melting three times faster than indicated by previous measurements, according to newly released gravity data collected by satellites. 

The Greenland Ice Sheet shrank at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres per year from April 2002 to November 2005, a team from the University of Texas at Austin, US, found. In the last 18 months of the measurements, ice melting has appeared to accelerate, particularly in southeastern Greenland. 

"This is a good study which confirms that indeed the Greenland ice sheet is losing a large amount of mass and that the mass loss is increasing with time," says Eric Rignot, from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, US, who led a separate study that reached a similar conclusion earlier in 2006 (See Greenland's glaciers are speeding to the ocean). His team used satellites to measure the velocity of glacier movement and calculate net ice loss. 

Yet another technique, which uses a laser to measure the altitude of the surface, determined that the ice sheet was losing about 80 cubic kilometres of ice annually between 1997 and 2003. The newer measurements suggest the ice loss is three times that.

"Acceleration of ice mass loss over Greenland, if confirmed, would be consistent with proposed increased global warming in recent years, and would indicate additional polar ice sheet contributions to global sea level rise," write the University of Texas researchers in the journal Science. 
Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed - environment - 10 August 2006 - New Scientist


----------



## Sinatra (May 30, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Leonard Weinstein ScD, former member of NASA and current member of the National Institute of Aerospace, elaborates on the actual temperature fluctuations and the resulting impacts on Arctic and Greenland ice cover - and deflates the CO2 connection utilized by the Global Warmers.
> 
> In his paper Weinstein makes clear that the Antarctic is actually cooling and sea ice formation is expanding - but the focus of the paper is primarily on the Arctic regions.
> 
> ...



Sorry Old Rocks, you did nothing but persist in putting up "projected maybe it could be..." kind of bought and paid for opinion papers.

The facts are facts - the arctic has been considerably warmer than it is now - the 1930s adn 1940s most recently.  Temps have been in decline. CO2 connection appears quite mixed.  And Antarctica is also cooling.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Leonard Weinstein ScD, former member of NASA and current member of the National Institute of Aerospace, elaborates on the actual temperature fluctuations and the resulting impacts on Arctic and Greenland ice cover - and deflates the CO2 connection utilized by the Global Warmers.
> 
> In his paper Weinstein makes clear that the Antarctic is actually cooling and sea ice formation is expanding - but the focus of the paper is primarily on the Arctic regions.
> 
> ...



_*HERETIC!!!!*_


----------



## Chris (May 31, 2009)

Weinstein is an engineer, not a climatologist.

Meanwhile, CO2 continues to rise, and the ice continues to melt.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

No, the Antarctic is not cooling.
Access : Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year : Nature


Nature 457, 459-462 (22 January 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07669; Received 14 January 2008; Accepted 1 December 2008



Eric J. Steig
David P. Schneider
Scott D. Rutherford
Michael E. Mann
Josefino C. Comiso
Drew T. Shindell
more authors of this article


Eric J. Steig1, David P. Schneider2, Scott D. Rutherford3, Michael E. Mann4, Josefino C. Comiso5 & Drew T. Shindell6

Department of Earth and Space Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA
Department of Meteorology, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
NASA Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA
Correspondence to: Eric J. Steig1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.J.S. (Email: steig@ess.washington.edu).


Top of pageAbstractAssessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Weinstein is an engineer, not a climatologist.
> 
> Meanwhile, CO2 continues to rise, and the ice continues to melt.



And yet the graph CLEARLY shows the current trend is much smaller then the 40's and for a lesser duration. So why was there any ice left in the 50's? What caused the rise in temperature in the 3o's and 40's?

Why are you and Old Rocks so intent on ignoring facts?


----------



## Sinatra (May 31, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> No, the Antarctic is not cooling.
> Access : Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year : Nature
> 
> 
> ...




Steig????

Are you aware of his drop in standing in the academic community with that cooked data of his?

NO, you would not be aware of that because you have no connection to academia.

Steig is a fraud and is scrambling to retain his position at the UW - even his fellow enviros are unhappy with his sham of a report.

And shame on you - you persist in repeating his lie despite having been told of it before.

I expect more from you - stop dissapointing...


----------



## Sinatra (May 31, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Weinstein is an engineer, not a climatologist.
> ...




Exactly.

They are so invested now in the lie of Global Warming they will defend it to their last breath.


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> "If current climate models from the IPCC included data from ice dynamics in Greenland, the sea level rise estimated during this century could be twice as high as what they are currently projecting," she said.
> 
> New Greenland Ice Sheet Data Will Impact Climate Change Models - UB NewsCenter




Sinatra posts real science and you answer with a script proposal from "Star Trek Enterprise"?


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Weinstein is an engineer, not a climatologist.
> 
> Meanwhile, CO2 continues to rise, and the ice continues to melt.




And the Steelers win footbal games and cute, fuzzy kittens play with yarn.  Are any of these things connected?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 31, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Weinstein is an engineer, not a climatologist.
> ...



Naw, we've upgraded to chasing bits online.


----------



## raceright (May 31, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Why don't Rocks and Chris compare the Satellite images from lets say the year 1800 to 2009????

Ca Ching  Ca Ching

Answer they don't have any,assholes.


----------



## Chris (May 31, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Weinstein is an engineer, not a climatologist.
> ...



Changing the subject doesn't make a good point.

Yes, the melting ice and the 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 are connected.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

*The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. An article by the American Institute of Physics.*

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 31, 2009)

I keep asking you DUMB ASSES. If the current trend is going to wipe out the ice, HOW COME in the 30's and 40's when the temperatures were HIGHER for a LONGER period of time there was no mass flooding and the ice survived JUST fine?


----------



## Sinatra (May 31, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I keep asking you DUMB ASSES. If the current trend is going to wipe out the ice, HOW COME in the 30's and 40's when the temperatures were HIGHER for a LONGER period of time there was no mass flooding and the ice survived JUST fine?




Shhhh - don't confuse their emotionally invested global warming premise...


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




The ice melts for various reasons.  The ice on Kilamanjaro, f'rinstance, melted due to a drop in humidity.  The ice globally melted to the same point it has melted to today about 7000 to 5000 years back and CO2 was not higher than it was 300 years ago during the little ice Age.  Except for the Ice in Antarctica and on Greenland, there is no ice on the planet that predates the end of the last Ice Age.

With all of the varied forcing factors at work with the climate and the obvious weakness of the forcing of CO2, why are you sold on this obviously wrong theory?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Why do you think it is obviously wrong when the phycists, geologist, meteorologists, and climatologists all state that CO2 is the primary forcing agent of the present warming? 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I keep asking you DUMB ASSES. If the current trend is going to wipe out the ice, HOW COME in the 30's and 40's when the temperatures were HIGHER for a LONGER period of time there was no mass flooding and the ice survived JUST fine?



Because the temps were not higher in the 30' and 40's. Eleven of the warmest years in the last 150 have happened in the last 13 years.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 31, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > I keep asking you DUMB ASSES. If the current trend is going to wipe out the ice, HOW COME in the 30's and 40's when the temperatures were HIGHER for a LONGER period of time there was no mass flooding and the ice survived JUST fine?
> ...



Look you fucking RETARD, just like you all keep reminding us that different places on the global have different temperatures, the GRAPH clearly proves you WRONG.

Or are you just ignoring the evidence cause it doesn't suit you? Go ahead you dumb ass refute the graph.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 31, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



They are ignoring evidence, it's the only way environut science works. The bigger of a picture you look at, the more their theories unravel.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 31, 2009)

Global Warming, brought to you by the people who gave you the gem: Y-2-K!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



*Sarge, you are a total idiot.*

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007)  The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850. 

Other remarkable global climatic events recorded so far in 2007 include record-low Arctic sea ice extent, which led to first recorded opening of the Canadian Northwest Passage; the relatively small Antarctic Ozone Hole; development of La Niña in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific; and devastating floods, drought and storms in many places around the world.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 31, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Takes one to know one ...

But using a million different reports based on one flawed set of data values, does not make those data findings accurate.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

2007 ties 1998 as second warmest year in past century
mongabay.com
January 17, 2008





2007 tied 1998 as the second warmest year in a century say climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). 2005 remains the warmest year over the past 100 years. 

Using temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years, Goddard Institute found the greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic and neighboring high latitude regions. 

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. 
2007 ties 1998 as second warmest year in past century


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

LONDON - Next year is set to be one of the top-five warmest on record, British climate scientists said on Tuesday.

The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina.

That would make it the warmest year since 2005, according to researchers at the Met Office, who say there is also a growing probability of record temperatures after next year.

Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52 degrees celsius - well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14 degrees celsius.

Warm weather that year was strongly influenced by El Nino, an abnormal warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific.

Theories abound as to what triggers the mechanisms that cause an El Nino or La Nina event but scientists agree that they are playing an increasingly important role in global weather patterns.

The strength of the prevailing trade winds that blow from east to west across the equatorial Pacific is thought to be an important factor.

"Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops," said Professor Chris Folland at the Met Office Hadley Center. "Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature."

Professor Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, said global warming had not gone away despite the fact that 2009, like the year just gone, would not break records.

"What matters is the underlying rate of warming," he said.

He noted the average temperature over 2001-2007 was 14.44 degrees celsius, 0.21 degrees celsius warmer than corresponding values for 1991-2000.
World Environment News - 2009 To Be One Of Warmest Years On Record: Researchers - Planet Ark


----------



## KittenKoder (May 31, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> 2007 ties 1998 as second warmest year in past century
> mongabay.com
> January 17, 2008
> 
> ...



Using the same flawed data still ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 2007 ties 1998 as second warmest year in past century
> ...



Your proof of which is?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 1, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Leonard Weinstein ScD, former member of NASA and current member of the National Institute of Aerospace, elaborates on the actual temperature fluctuations and the resulting impacts on Arctic and Greenland ice cover - and deflates the CO2 connection utilized by the Global Warmers.
> 
> In his paper Weinstein makes clear that the Antarctic is actually cooling and sea ice formation is expanding - but the focus of the paper is primarily on the Arctic regions.
> 
> ...



Here is the graph again you fucking moron. It CLEARLY shows that from the 20's through the 40's the arctic region was warmer and for longer than currently. Dispute THAT fact you dumb ass.

Again why was there any ice left? if according to you the current trend which is weaker and mot as long as the previous one will destroy all the ice why was any left after the last one?

Ohh and I better not catch you claiming that North American temperatures are different from the rest of the planet again, since you continue to argue here that it just ain't possible.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> In his paper Weinstein makes clear that the Antarctic is actually cooling and sea ice formation is expanding - but the focus of the paper is primarily on the Arctic regions.




What "paper" ? Its an email sent to a blog, that's not a scientific paper. I could send an email to a blog, right now, and tell them any bullshit I wanted.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 1, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > In his paper Weinstein makes clear that the Antarctic is actually cooling and sea ice formation is expanding - but the focus of the paper is primarily on the Arctic regions.
> ...



Ya cause you have such standing as to be taken seriously. Isn't it amazing how ONLY the people the left decides are credible matter? And when they are discredited the left just keeps using them as if nothing happened.

Check out the graph dumb ass and answer the question. If this warming trend which is of a lesser time frame and lesser temperatures in the region then the 20's - 40's one was, why was there any ice left in the 50's when you retards are claiming this time it will all melt? Why weren't the sea levels raised, New York and east coast flooded?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2009)

When an article passes peer review in a scientific journal, the methodology, supporting evidence are all checked. When someone posts in a blog, nothing is checked. 

Peer reviewed scientific journals are a far better and more reliable source of information than wingnut blogs. Even dumb fucking sargeants should know that!


----------



## elvis (Jun 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> When an article passes peer review in a scientific journal, the methodology, supporting evidence are all checked. When someone posts in a blog, nothing is checked.
> 
> Peer reviewed scientific journals are a far better and more reliable source of information than wingnut blogs. Even dumb fucking *sargeants *should know that!



Hey Roxy, you may want to learn to spell before you start calling people dumb.

Just a thought,  asshole.


----------



## elvis (Jun 1, 2009)

When did Old Roxy start getting off on insulting servicemen?  Chrissy must be whispering sweet nothings in his ear again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> When an article passes peer review in a scientific journal, the methodology, supporting evidence are all checked. When someone posts in a blog, nothing is checked.
> 
> Peer reviewed scientific journals are a far better and more reliable source of information than wingnut blogs. Even dumb fucking sargeants should know that!



Address the Graph NUMB NUTS. Either it is accurate or it is not, pretty damn simple to check. You check it out. Once again since you are NOT disputing the graph, your entire bullshit response is trying to change the subject.

Also just for you dumb ass, Remind us how the Lancet report about a million dead Iraqis which WAS posted in peer review works was never peer reviewed. It is a sad fact that people like you encourage scientists to falsify and create from whole cloth material that IS NOT initially in this matter. And then eventually when it is proven false it is sweep under the rug and ignored.

Remember the Hockey Stick Graph?

The graph clearly invalidates every single one of your chicken little claims about the dire straights we are in. It proves the claim that the ice is melting faster then ever before is untrue. It proves that the ice will vanish is Untru. It proves that the coast, especially the East Coast of the US is in no danger at this time.

Of course you want it to go away. Guess what DUMB ASS, it isn't going away and your attempts to defelct from it are not working.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 1, 2009)

All I know is that it's June 1st, and my heater is still kicking in because it's cold outside.  When is summer going to get here?


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 1, 2009)

Dr. Weinstein has 35 years experience at the NASA Langley Research Center where he was a Senior Research Scientist and is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. 

His position is not that the earth didn't experience some warming in the last decade, but that the warming was far less than predicted by the likes of the IPCC report and alarmists such as Hansen.  Weinstein also maintains that the link between warming, and man-made causes is minimal, and any future climate warming will be far less than more recent alarmist predictions from the global warming crowd is now disseminating.  He does propose continued policies to reduce overall human-made pollution - but believes the man-made greenhouse gas/global warming theory to be more propoganda than science.

Weinstein shows that an honest review of even recent earth temperatures shows variations between warmer and colder periods, including periods warmer than present yet before the more substantial rise in human-produced CO2 levels.  (Such as the 1930s and 1940s, which were significantly warmer than the 1990's and certainly warmer than the last few years when temperatures have been in decline once again.)

Any attempts to disregard Weinstein's views on the subject is simply another example of those clinging on to their pre-determined global warming belief system.  His opinion, like other climate realists in the scientific community, is worthy of serious consideration by anyone actually approaching this subject with an objective, science-based approach...


----------



## elvis (Jun 1, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dr. Weinstein has 35 years experience at the NASA Langley Research Center where he was a Senior Research Scientist and is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
> 
> His position is not that the earth didn't experience some warming in the last decade, but that the warming was far less than predicted by the likes of the IPCC report and alarmists such as Hansen.  Weinstein also maintains that the link between warming, and man-made causes is minimal, and any future climate warming will be far less than more recent alarmist predictions from the global warming crowd is now disseminating.  He does propose continued policies to reduce overall human-made pollution - but believes the man-made greenhouse gas/global warming theory to be more propoganda than science.
> 
> ...



I guess we can rule Old Roxy out then.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> When an article passes peer review in a scientific journal, the methodology, supporting evidence are all checked. When someone posts in a blog, nothing is checked.
> 
> Peer reviewed scientific journals are a far better and more reliable source of information than wingnut blogs. Even dumb fucking sargeants should know that!


Riiiiight.....When a blue-ribbon panel of anthropogenic global warming crackpots "review" and approve your crackpottery, then it's kosher!!


----------



## Chris (Jun 2, 2009)

Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 2, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dr. Weinstein has 35 years experience at the NASA Langley Research Center where he was a Senior Research Scientist and is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
> 
> His position is not that the earth didn't experience some warming in the last decade, but that the warming was far less than predicted by the likes of the IPCC report and alarmists such as Hansen.  Weinstein also maintains that the link between warming, and man-made causes is minimal, and any future climate warming will be far less than more recent alarmist predictions from the global warming crowd is now disseminating.  He does propose continued policies to reduce overall human-made pollution - but believes the man-made greenhouse gas/global warming theory to be more propoganda than science.
> 
> ...


----------



## elvis (Jun 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.



It wasn't rush that he quoted, dipshit.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.


Strawman alert!!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya cause you have such standing as to be taken seriously. Isn't it amazing how ONLY the people the left decides are credible matter?



No, only research published in peer reviewed scientific literature is credible.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

Who are the "peers"...The IPCC that only accepts about 7% of the scientific papers it solicits??

Or maybe those "peers" are the authors of those 7% of papers??

Did you know that holocaust deniers utilize exactly the same kind of "peer review"??


----------



## Chris (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.
> ...



Hardly.

Every scientific society in every country on the planet disagrees with you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 2, 2009)

One more time for the terminally insane and wretchedly IGNORANT. The chart is there, PROVE it wrong.


----------



## Chris (Jun 2, 2009)

It's an oft-repeated statistic that the glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park will disappear by the year 2030. 

But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park's namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region's plants and animals. 

The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

"Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model," Fagre said. "What we've been saying now is 2020." 

The 2020 estimate is based on aerial surveys and photography Fagre and his team have been conducting at Glacier since the early 1980s. A more standardized measure of what's happening to a glacier comes from arduous documentation of its mass, which requires&#8212;among other techniques&#8212;multiple core samples. 

Fagre said the 2020 estimate could be slightly revised after his team conducts the mass measurements&#8212;hopefully this year&#8212;and their computer models are retooled with current temperatures. 

Nonpolar ice is disappearing all over the globe, Fagre said. Major glaciers have entirely disappeared from the Andes, and the Himalaya have lost a third of their snow. 

No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 2, 2009)

PROVE the graph provided is wrong you dumb shit. Or explain how a region you claim will lose its ice did not lose it in the 20-40 time period when the temperature was higher and for a longer period of time.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Hardly.
> 
> Every scientific society in every country on the planet disagrees with you.


Now you're just flat-out lying.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 2, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> PROVE the graph provided is wrong you dumb shit. Or explain how a region you claim will lose its ice did not lose it in the 20-40 time period when the temperature was higher and for a longer period of time.




I understand your anger! It is frustrating when a GW supporter is presented with factual evidence and they revert back to estimated studies as a means of arguement.

The temperature graphs are not fact - they are irrefutable truth that the arctic was warmer in the recent past as well as the more distant past.  That the earth's temperatures are very much cyclical, the causes of which are extremely complicated and near-impossible to predict.  

And yet, people like Chris persist in ignorant comments of absolutes that are based upon conjecture and not fact.

Kinda sad the discussion has to be like that...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Who are the "peers"...The IPCC that only accepts about 7% of the scientific papers it solicits??



Or the hundreds of other relevant scientific journals



> Or maybe those "peers" are the authors of those 7% of papers??



Yes, scientific journals often have as referees people who have previously been published in such a journal. That's what makes them "peers"




> Did you know that holocaust deniers utilize exactly the same kind of "peer review"??



No they don't.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Or the hundreds of other relevant scientific journals.


The unspoken "....who also glean their "evidence" from the same minority of scientists".




SpidermanTuba said:


> Yes, scientific journals often have as referees people who have previously been published in such a journal. That's what makes them "peers"
> 
> No they don't.


Yes they do....By exactly the networking model you described.

Global warming scaremongers, just like holocaust deniers, routinely quote one another's "research" as "proof" they're correct, to the exclusion of all evidence that contravenes it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> One more time for the terminally insane and wretchedly IGNORANT. The chart is there, PROVE it wrong.



How can I prove it wrong when I don't even know where it came from?

"The following is a temperature record over the last 11,000 years made from a typical ice core from the peak of the Greenland ice cap."

Which ice core? Taken by whom and published where? The author doesn't reveal this. For all we know he completely made it up. His email wouldn't even pass a first round of peer review.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Or the hundreds of other relevant scientific journals.
> ...



What minority? Only the IPCC and other special groups have such low publication rates per submission. The vast majority of journals aren't as selective as their purpose isn't as selective. I'm not getting your point. 

The fact that you'd even suggest the vast majority of scientists can't get their work published is absurd at face value. If you don't get your work published, you will quickly not have a job.



> Yes they do....By exactly the networking model you described.


No, its by the networking model _you_ described.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > PROVE the graph provided is wrong you dumb shit. Or explain how a region you claim will lose its ice did not lose it in the 20-40 time period when the temperature was higher and for a longer period of time.
> ...




How do we know the evidence is "factual" when the author doesn't even tell us where it came from?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> The fact that you'd even suggest the vast majority of scientists can't get their work published is absurd at face value.* If you don't get your work published, you will quickly not have a job.*


Uh-huh.....And if your research contravenes what the "peers" doing the reviewing have convinced themselves of what the facts are, what are you chances of getting published??

Somewhere between slim and none is my bet.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you'd even suggest the vast majority of scientists can't get their work published is absurd at face value.* If you don't get your work published, you will quickly not have a job.*
> ...



If your research proves what is already accepted as proven without adding anything else, you have a far lower chance of getting published.

You seem to be arguing that simultaneously a) only those who can get published can hold jobs in research science b) the overwhelming majority of scientists who work in research can't get published. You can't have it both ways, those are contradictory statements.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 2, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




You are unfamiliar with Jones et al?

For God's sake how can you even come in here and attempt to comment on this information then????

Here is a primer - the language can get a bit technical by Steve, but he is on the mark here.  Basically, all of these so called studies are simply updated variations on the same pre-formed sets of data in order to support a pre-determined conclusion.

Very similar to what Steig did with his Antarctic study that gave a black eye to not only Steig, but the UW and Nature.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4866


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> If your research proves what is already accepted as proven without adding anything else, you have a far lower chance of getting published.
> 
> You seem to be arguing that simultaneously a) only those who can get published can hold jobs in research science b) the overwhelming majority of scientists who work in research can't get published. You can't have it both ways, those are contradictory statements.


Riiiiight...So you constantly have to make up new crap that comports with the crap that the rest of the "peers" made up to comport with the last bunch of made-up crap......And so on and so on....

Scientists aren't any less subject to back-slapping cliquish behavior than any other bunch of group thinkers.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...






Jones et al isn't cited as the source of the chart in question, so I don't see your point. In fact the author doesn't cite a single source.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > If your research proves what is already accepted as proven without adding anything else, you have a far lower chance of getting published.
> ...



If you make up crap you won't get very far.



> Scientists aren't any less subject to back-slapping cliquish behavior than any other bunch of group thinkers.



Right.... anonymous peers critically reviewing the work of others before publication(and usually not getting paid) - its exactly like that everywhere. Happens on FOX news all the time. Or do those guys not qualify as "thinkers" ?


----------



## k2skier (Jun 2, 2009)

Pages worth a look; 9, 11, 30, 34, 35, 37 and page 42 has financial support.

http://nsidc.org/pubs/annual/NSIDC_Annual_Report_2006.pdf


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 2, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...




It isn't?

What chart in question are you referring to?


----------



## Chris (Jun 2, 2009)




----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

That chart _*proves*_ the activities of industrialized man are to blame in what way??


----------



## Chris (Jun 2, 2009)

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.

Why?


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> 
> Why?



Could be a failsafe in the system to provide more life blocks to aid in adaptive evolution.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> 
> Why?


You've repeated that yapping point, over and over and over and over again.....Argumentum ad nauseum.

Yet, you conveniently ignore the evidence I've posted, and will post yet again, that the current state of Earf's magnetosphere is weaker that it has been in centuries.

Earth&#39;s Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says

Please, Chrissy, tell us about how _*National Geographic*_ is in on the Vast Right-Wing Denier Conspiracy!!!!

Please.....Bring it.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 3, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



This simple question remains unanswered - and the fact remains the arctic was considerably warmer just 70 years ago.

If it survived nearly two decades of warming then - what is the reasoning behind the alarmist science now?

Could it be.....


Money?


----------



## Chris (Jun 3, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> ...



Here's a quote from the article you posted....

*This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth.*

Busted...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 3, 2009)

Uh-huh..

Who did the "peer review"??

Busted....


----------



## Chris (Jun 3, 2009)

Dude said:


> Uh-huh..
> 
> Who did the "peer review"??
> 
> Busted....



So you are now trying to disprove the article that you posted?

That's a first!


----------



## elvis (Jun 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> 
> Why?



again, daft ****, you've proven nothing.


----------



## k2skier (Jun 3, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> ...




Strawman, completely irrelevant, deniers are worse than AGW paranoid preachers.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 3, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Um ... yeah ... as I always say, it's easy to make a con true if you ignore all facts and science except those that support your position, the same way Goreans do.


----------



## Chris (Jun 3, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



The sun is at its lowest activity level in 80 years.

So why is are the glaciers and the ice cap still melting?


----------



## elvis (Jun 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > k2skier said:
> ...



for the hell of it.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 3, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## Chris (Jun 3, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



You can't answer that question.

As I suspected.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 3, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You have yet to explain why from the 20's to the late 40's the cap didn't just melt away when it was hotter for longer then it has been currently. Why is there any ice there at all to melt after that?


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2009)

Chris, why don't you answer RGS's question?  This is really making you, and your "theory" of Man made global warming look bad.  just sayin.....


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> The sun is at its lowest activity level in 80 years.
> 
> So why is are the glaciers and the ice cap still melting?


I linked to a possible explanation, asshelmet.

What have you done to even attempt to explain that one away....Besides nothing.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Strawman, completely irrelevant, deniers are worse than AGW paranoid preachers.


Scientific evidence of a weaker magnetosphere -y'kinow, that invisible shield against much of the sun's radiation- is an irrelevant strawman???

Mmmmmm'kay!


----------



## elvis (Jun 4, 2009)

Anyone else have trouble enjoying Thunderball now?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Here's a bigger set.






You can see that even though there are sometimes big rises in arctic sea ice extent, the overall trend as been downward since 1979


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> That chart _*proves*_ the activities of industrialized man are to blame in what way??



No. It proves the arctic ice cap has been melting.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
> ...





DUDE - did you even fucking read the article you linked to?

"*THIS RADIATION DOES NOT INFLUENCE TEMPERATURES ON EARTH*"
page 2 paragraph 4 Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says


Here, I'll repeat it a few times for emphasis since you skipped over it when you read the article

"*THIS RADIATION DOES NOT INFLUENCE TEMPERATURES ON EARTH*"

"*THIS RADIATION DOES NOT INFLUENCE TEMPERATURES ON EARTH*"

"*THIS RADIATION DOES NOT INFLUENCE TEMPERATURES ON EARTH*"


JEEZ!!!



Why is it when the anti-science crowd posts a reference they claim to support their view - it actually winds up saying the opposite most of the time?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > That chart _*proves*_ the activities of industrialized man are to blame in what way??
> ...


Right.

So, how does correlation relate to causation??

Oh yeah.....It doesn't.


----------



## elvis (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



But Uncle al says it does.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 4, 2009)

Except in 1979 we were still in that ice age was coming phase.

Now provide us a chart from 1920 to 1950.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Uh-huh..
> 
> Who did the "peer review"??
> 
> Busted....



Since the referees for papers are usually anonymous, that's a hard question to answer. Though in our research group's meetings we often will try and guess who it is based on their particular comments and knowledge in the area.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> This simple question remains unanswered - and the fact remains the arctic was considerably warmer just 70 years ago.



How is that a fact?


> Could it be.....
> 
> 
> Money?



Are you suggesting its actually more profitable to spend 6 years of your life slaving away as a graduate student to go on to produce false science than it is to sell oil, cars, and all the other things which emit CO2 gas?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



It doesn't by itself. What we do is look at other evidence than the chart. For instance:

1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 and green house gasses absorb certain bandwidths of infra-red radiation more than other atmospheric gases

2) it is a fact that we have been producing enough CO2 to significantly increase the atmosphere's CO2 content. We know this based on the known approximate mass of fossil fuels burnt since the industrial revolution, and the basic chemistry that tells us how much CO2 will be released when a fossil fuel is burnt

3) We have observed said CO2 increase

4) We have observed temperature increases


Given that we know CO2 CAN cause the earth to warm, given that we've been emitting gigatons of the stuff over the past hundred fifty years or so, and given that we've observed a rise in temperatures - what other conclusion would you draw? Mere coincidence?




If I took a bucket half filled with water, and started pouring water in it, when it overflowed you'd claim that there's no proof me pouring more water in it caused it to overflow.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Are you suggesting its actually more profitable to spend 6 years of your life slaving away as a graduate student to go on to produce false science than it is to sell oil, cars, and all the other things which emit CO2 gas?


It's profitable if you come to the same conclusions as everyone else, join the academe clique,  then never have to go out and produce things others would want to buy.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except in 1979 we were still in that ice age was coming phase.



There's actually no scientific papers from 1979 that make such a claim without stating that the coming ice age is contingent upon anthropogenic warming factors not playing a role.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> It doesn't by itself. What we do is look at other evidence than the chart. For instance:
> 
> 1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 and green house gasses absorb certain bandwidths of infra-red radiation more than other atmospheric gases
> 
> ...


Only if you discount any and all other possible explanations, like a weaker magnetosphere, out of hand and downplay the infinite about of organic compensatory mechanisms.

The planet is not in a bell jar, and your "conclusions" cannot be repeated on demand in the context of a dynamic system....If you can't recreate it on demand, it's not science.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > It's profitable if you come to the same conclusions as everyone else, join the academe clique,  then never have to go out and produce things others would want to buy.
> ...


----------



## elvis (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

> Only if you discount any and all other possible explanations, like a weaker magnetosphere,



Already discounted by the very article you linked to. I guess you didn't see it above. I'll try again.

From the article YOU linked to here: Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says

From page 2 paragraph 4

*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*
*"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."*




> out of hand and downplay the infinite about of organic compensatory mechanisms.



What are you talking about? "compensatory mechanisms" - like more co2 leading to more vegetation which will help remove some of the CO2? its a great idea but in reality were' cutting down vegetation faster than its growing back, so that won't work.



> The planet is not in a bell jar, and your "conclusions" cannot be repeated on demand in the context of a dynamic system....If you can't recreate it on demand, it's not science.



So black holes don't exist until we can make one in a lab, despite the reams of observational and theoretical evidence supporting their existence?

What about the Sun? Can't make that in a lab. Must not exist.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?


It's even worse than that.

In many instances, you have to make up new shit out of whole cloth (i.e. psych candidates have to discover a "new" neurosis/psychosis).....Which is, more often than not, built upon what previous PhDs made up.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?




Not in my experience. I've been in a PhD program for 5 years now and we've had both a Democratic and a Republican governor in this state in that time - when the Republican took over my advisor must not have gotten the memo to call me into his office and direct me to make different conclusion.


----------



## elvis (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
> ...



I am talking about within the program, not who the fucking governor is.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
> ...



I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.


Or - i think I got it. Any science which comes to conclusions that the DUDE doesnt like is overly influence by politics and wrong - when it comes to conclusions that DUDE likes or results in technology he uses - it must be right!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...




"politics" within the program how? I've never had to participate in any politics. I started graduate school, took my classes, talked with some professors about the work they do, found one who did stuff I was interested in, and decided to work for him. What politics was involved? When was I ever directed to make a certain conclusion? In fact, I don't even know what the result of my work will be, that's why I'm conducting it - that's what makes it original and worthy of a PhD in the first place.


----------



## elvis (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



He never said he was against science, dipshit.  We are making the point that politics plays a heavy role in the PhD process.  If you don't believe that, you must not really be in a Phd program.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> > Only if you discount any and all other possible explanations, like a weaker magnetosphere,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yo DUDE - still waiting for you to explain why you claim the magnetosphere is causing the earth to warm and think linked to an article where the opposite is claimed.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 4, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> He never said he was against science, dipshit.



Right - he just thinks its all made up. He's no against it, he just thinks its a bunch of people making shit up. I get it.



> We are making the point that politics plays a heavy role in the PhD process.



In what sense?



> If you don't believe that, you must not really be in a Phd program.



I believe its you are the one who is not in a PhD program.


----------



## elvis (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > He never said he was against science, dipshit.
> ...



Scientists in Germany did research claiming the Aryan race was superior to all others and that Jews were demonic.  I guess they weren't making it up, eh cuntface?  since scientists never make anything up.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.
> 
> 
> Or - i think I got it. Any science which comes to conclusions that the DUDE doesnt like is overly influence by politics and wrong - when it comes to conclusions that DUDE likes or results in technology he uses - it must be right!


Wrong, numbnuts.

I'm pointing out that if the PhD thesis being handed in to Paul Krugman is on the marvels of Austrian economics, or even the Chicago school, the odds of you getting your PhD are on an extremely low order of probability.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.
> ...



Perhaps I am the only one in here who has gone through the PhD process (to say nothing of the even more difficult world of tenure) - as well as been on the review side of said process.

There is ENORMOUS pressure to capitulate and simply "give them what they want to hear".  While there are conservatives on college campuses, they are a decided minority.  Liberalism - at times extreme liberalism, dominates the college campus.  That is not to say these are bad people - some of them are close personal friends.  They are simply deeply imbedded in the liberal philosophy, and as such, do all they can within their respective field, to protect and advance that philosophy.

Often you will not see a professor openly espouse conservative ideals until some time after gaining tenure - and even then, they go about it carefully.  Another interesting offshoot of this transformation, is that these professors will often then gain very large and loyal followings from members of the student body who themselves are yearning to hear a more balanced/conservative approach from those responsible for their studies.

Currently, I would perhaps rate Bob George of Princeton as among the most influential and inspirational conservative minds at the University level.  His lectures are consistently outstanding in both content and presentation.  And Professor George is not beyond pushing the boundaries  - a bit of a shock and awe approach to instructing if you will.

Sadly, his example is the too few exception to the rule of the overtly liberal American college campus...


----------



## elvis (Jun 4, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Now THAT sounds like PhD work.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 4, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...




Let's suppose that we are filling that bucket.  The bucket in this case is the warming produced by GHG's.  About 3% of those GHG's are CO2 and about 3% of that CO2 contributed is man made.

We know that in times of warming that the Earth naturally produces more CO2 and we know both that CO2 is actually, right now, being released naturally in greater quantities than at any time in recorded history and that natural warming has always preceeded natural CO2 increases.

We further know that every Ice Age for a million years has started when CO2 was at its peak for that cycle.  We know that every interglacial for the same period has started when CO2 was at its low point.  Is this also causation in your argument?  While there is a correlation, it is in direct conflict with your thesis. 

Your bucket doesn't seem to hold water.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 4, 2009)

code1211 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Well presented response!


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 4, 2009)

Environut ignoring the post or denial in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 4, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Environut ignoring the post or denial in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2009)

code1211 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Pretty lame argument.

We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. The effect of this increase in CO2 has been calculated by the scientists at MIT. They are saying that it will raise the temperature of the earth 5-9 degrees. 

But what do they know compared to your vast knowledge!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2009)

STILL WAITING, explain the graph provided and why there was any ice to melt after 1950?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...





And yet, as impossible as this might be to accept, the Global Temperature continues to fall.  Haven't the Scientists at MIT explained to nature that it cannot act in varience to the models produced by MIT?

This reminds me of the researcher who taught a frog to jump on command.  He'd say jump and the frog would jump.  One by one, he cut of each off the frogs legs until the torso and head of the frog sat motionless when the command to jump was issued.

Conclusion?  Frogs hear with their legs.

By the by, what has been the performance of the real world compared to the climate models of MIT that cover the last 7 years?  I'm guessing that it has been wrong, wrong, wrong.  The Scientists at MIT must be confounded by the uncooperative nature of nature.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 24, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, the Antarctic is not cooling.
> ...



Are you aware that you are posting lies? Of course you are.


----------



## Sinatra (Jun 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



No, I assure you, I am not.

Steig's reputation was greatly diminished - even as his report continued to be disseminated in various media outlets that did not bother to discover the faults within Steig's data - thus, it is hardly mentioned mere months after its initial publication.

That is, except by an ignorant few in here...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jul 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Politics is involved even less so in that case.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jul 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Really? Was there research validated by similar research conducted in other nations by countless other scientists? Did a massive group of thousands of scientists from around the world all get together and decide to publish it?

What peer reviewed scientific literature did they post their research in? Were those peers only German - or were they a cross section of the world at large?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jul 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> I'm pointing out that if the PhD thesis being handed in to Paul Krugman is on the marvels of Austrian economics, or even the Chicago school, the odds of you getting your PhD are on an extremely low order of probability.




A) If you're living in Jersey, especially Princeton, your life is already over. There's nothing to do there. You can't even buy package beer or liquor after 10. They don't even let you pump your own gas for crying out loud. Smokes are 9.85 in NYC and about 8 bucks in Jersey - the NYC smokes are better deal because you get to smoke them in New York City and not Jersey.

B) How would you know? Are you Krugman? And what school is it that you hand your thesis directly to your advisor and not to the department or university for review by the full committee?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jul 30, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...









Sure, maybe that applies somewhat to fake sciences like social science and economics, but in real science, like physics, chemistry, biology, we've go to actually have evidence to support our thesis.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jul 30, 2009)

code1211 said:


> And yet, as impossible as this might be to accept, the Global Temperature continues to fall.





Why does the anti-science crowd insist on simply making things up and using them as if they were fact?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2009)

*Yes, to these people ll of the hottest years on record in the last 13 years equals a cooling trend. Total freakin' idiots.*



2009 to be one of the hottest years on record
Tuesday, December 30, 2008 
2009 may offer much beach water, but the underlying trend is worrying say scientists Next year is set to be one of the five warmest on record, climate scientists have predicted. 
The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4C above the long term average, making next year warmer than this year and the hottest since 2005, the Met Office and University of East Anglia researchers said. 

Next year is expected to be in the top five warmest on record despite the cooling influence of the Pacific weather phenomenon known as La Nina, in which cold waters rise to the surface and cool ocean and land temperatures. 


RELATED ITEMS

 Latest news bulletin 
Today's top news headlines 

2009 to be one of the hottest years on record | Metro.co.uk

The Met Office also predicted a rapid return to long-term warming for global temperatures and an increased probability of record temperatures after 2009. 

Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which was dominated by the warming influence of an extreme El Nino and saw average temperatures of 14.52C - well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14C. 

Prof Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: "Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature. 

"Warmer conditions in 2009 are expected because the strong cooling influence of the recent powerful La Nina has given way to a weaker La Nina. 

"Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops." 

And Prof Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, said: "The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away. 

"What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44C, was 0.21C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."


----------



## elvis (Jul 30, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Yes it was validated by scientists in the United States long before Hitler.  They "proved" that whites were superior to all other races because of the size of their craniums.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2009)

*2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth hottest year on record.*

11 Hottest Years Occurred in Past 13 | LiveScience

The top 10 hottest years globally (based on anomalies from average global temperature from 1971 through 2000) include: 

1998 &#8211; 0.94 degrees Fahrenheit (0.52 degrees Celsius) above average

2005 &#8211; 0.86 degrees Fahrenheit (0.48 degrees Celsius) above average 
2003 &#8211; 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit (0.46 degrees Celsius) above average 
2002 &#8211; 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit (0.46 degrees Celsius) above average 
2004 &#8211; 0.77 degrees Fahrenheit (0.43 degrees Celsius) above average 
2006 &#8211; 0.76 degrees Fahrenheit (0.42 degrees Celsius) above average 
2007 &#8211; 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit (0.41 degrees Celsius) above average 
2001 &#8211; 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit (0.40 degrees Celsius) above average 
1997 &#8211; 0.65 degrees Fahrenheit (0.36 degrees Celsius) above average 
1995 &#8211; 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.28 degrees Celsius) above average


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Sure, dingbat, sure. And we are just supposed accept that kind of blithering nonsense because you say so?


----------



## elvis (Jul 30, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



I don't give a fuck what you believe, you daft ****.  It's not MY fault you don't know your history.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2009)

but still no links showing the scientific societies statements on this matter? Hmmm...........


----------

