Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Midnight Marauder]

Soooooooo gullible and sooooooooo stupid. Did you imagine that global warming means that it will stop snowing in Antarctica?

One of the foremost and leading climatologists DID say however that snow would be a "rare and exciting event" in Europe due to global warming, back in 2000...

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

He really looks stupid and gullible now, by your own measure. Does he not?

No, it is still you denier cult dimwits who look stupid and gullible.

Following Viner and his crew's instructions faithfully, you refer to skeptical people as "deniers," trying to lump them all in with Holocaust deniers.

Do you not see your religious devotion at work?

 

[RollingThunder]

I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?

I think you are truly a dumb ass for even posting that kind of foolishness. And you dare try to pass yourself off as a scientist.

Tell that to the ice! Seems to me it has sure grown pretty damned deep in half a century don't you? Gosh you're blind.

LOL. So typical that a denier cult dimwit would imagine that un-sourced pictures are better 'evidence' for his delusions than the actual scientific evidence that debunks his myths.

Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study
November 22, 2009

Measurements of Winter Arctic Sea Ice Shows Continuing Ice Loss, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Mar. 30, 2011)

Ice Loss Accelerates in Greenland, Antarctica, NASA Study Finds
- Mar 9, 2011

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I think you are truly a dumb ass for even posting that kind of foolishness. And you dare try to pass yourself off as a scientist.

Tell that to the ice! Seems to me it has sure grown pretty damned deep in half a century don't you? Gosh you're blind.

LOL. So typical that a denier cult dimwit would imagine that un-sourced pictures are better 'evidence' for his delusions than the actual scientific evidence that debunks his myths.

Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study
November 22, 2009

Measurements of Winter Arctic Sea Ice Shows Continuing Ice Loss, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Mar. 30, 2011)

Ice Loss Accelerates in Greenland, Antarctica, NASA Study Finds
- Mar 9, 2011

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

I think you are truly a dumb ass for even posting that kind of foolishness. And you dare try to pass yourself off as a scientist.

Tell that to the ice! Seems to me it has sure grown pretty damned deep in half a century don't you? Gosh you're blind.

LOL. So typical that a denier cult dimwit would imagine that un-sourced pictures are better 'evidence' for his delusions than the actual scientific evidence that debunks his myths.

Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study
November 22, 2009

Measurements of Winter Arctic Sea Ice Shows Continuing Ice Loss, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Mar. 30, 2011)

Ice Loss Accelerates in Greenland, Antarctica, NASA Study Finds
- Mar 9, 2011

I guess you didn't know about this peer reviewed study (or more likely you chose to ignore it because you're a religious fanatic) that shows how the GRACE satellites are heavily biased...

The two researchers report that the mean ocean mass trends they calculated "vary quite dramatically depending on which GRACE product is used, which adjustments are applied, and how the data are processed." More specifically, they state that "the PGR adjustment ranges from 1 to 2 mm/year, the geocenter adjustment may have biases on the order of 0.2 mm/year, and the atmospheric mass correction may have errors of up to 0.1 mm/year," while "differences between GRACE data centers are quite large, up to 1 mm/year, and differences due to variations in the processing may be up to 0.5 mm/year."

What it means
In light of the fact that Quinn and Ponte indicate that "over the last century, the rate of sea level rise has been only 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/year, based on tide gauge reconstructions (Church and White, 2006)," it seems a bit strange that one would ever question that result on the basis of a GRACE-derived assessment, with its many and potentially very large "errors and biases." In addition, as Ramillien et al. (2006) have noted, "the GRACE data time series is still very short," and results obtained from it "must be considered as preliminary since we cannot exclude that apparent trends [derived from it] only reflect inter-annual fluctuations." And as Quinn and Ponte also add, "non-ocean signals, such as in the Indian Ocean due to the 2004 Sumatran-Andean earthquake, and near Greenland and West Antarctica due to land signal leakage, can also corrupt the ocean trend estimates."

Clearly, the GRACE approach to evaluating ocean mass and sea level trends still has a long way to go -- and must develop a long history of data acquisition -- before it can ever be considered a reliable means of providing assessments of ocean mass and sea level change that are accurate enough to detect an anthropogenic signal that could be confidently distinguished from natural variability.


CO2 Science



WHOOPS! LOOKS LIKE THE RELIGIOUS FANATIC SCREWED UP AGAIN!

You're so easy to refute, just go home little one, you're way out of your league...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Dr. Viner was working with the information they had at the time and since then some other newer trends have postponed his predictions but not invalidated them.

In other words, he was wrong, but he's right now!

Were they right on accepted climate science then? --> Rain follows the plow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course not. Only now when they are just flat out wrong, their acolytes still defend it. Just keep moving the goalposts!

 

[RollingThunder]

One of the foremost and leading climatologists DID say however that snow would be a "rare and exciting event" in Europe due to global warming, back in 2000...

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

He really looks stupid and gullible now, by your own measure. Does he not?

No, it is still you denier cult dimwits who look stupid and gullible.

Following Viner and his crew's instructions faithfully, you refer to skeptical people as "deniers," trying to lump them all in with Holocaust deniers.

Do you not see your religious devotion at work?

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the fossil fuel industry propaganda whole without ever checking your sources or showing any discrimination on what constitutes a reliable source for accurate scientific information and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.

The reasons for using the term “skeptics” to identify some of those who question climate science and “deniers” for others are discussed at:

* Evolution & Climate Deniers: The Redux Edition
* Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
* That “Denier vs Septic” thing again
* Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers
* How to be a real sceptic (RealClimate)
* About denialism
* Skepticism
* Climate change: The semantics of denial (George Monbiot)
* climate denial is not skepticism!
* Climate change deniers are ‘flat-earthers’
* Six Aspects of Denial
* Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution
* Climate Change Fundamentalism
* Climate change creationists
* Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
* Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians
* Why Global Warming is a Lie

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No, it is still you denier cult dimwits who look stupid and gullible.

Following Viner and his crew's instructions faithfully, you refer to skeptical people as "deniers," trying to lump them all in with Holocaust deniers.

Do you not see your religious devotion at work?

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the fossil fuel industry propaganda whole without ever checking your sources or showing any discrimination on what constitutes a reliable source for accurate scientific information and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.

Your ignorance is indeed towering.... You actually have no clue at all where I stand on this issue. I'm certainly not "pro oil."

BUT... I DO know a fundie religious fanatic when I see one. And you're it! Complete with bible thumping!

 

[westwall]

No, it is still you denier cult dimwits who look stupid and gullible.

Following Viner and his crew's instructions faithfully, you refer to skeptical people as "deniers," trying to lump them all in with Holocaust deniers.

Do you not see your religious devotion at work?

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the fossil fuel industry propaganda whole without ever checking your sources or showing any discrimination on what constitutes a reliable source for accurate scientific information and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.

The reasons for using the term “skeptics” to identify some of those who question climate science and “deniers” for others are discussed at:

* Evolution & Climate Deniers: The Redux Edition
* Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
* That “Denier vs Septic” thing again
* Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers
* How to be a real sceptic (RealClimate)
* About denialism
* Skepticism
* Climate change: The semantics of denial (George Monbiot)
* climate denial is not skepticism!
* Climate change deniers are ‘flat-earthers’
* Six Aspects of Denial
* Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution
* Climate Change Fundamentalism
* Climate change creationists
* Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
* Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians
* Why Global Warming is a Lie

Wow, if you change the term from denialist to alarmist quack they all work too!

A more sure sign they have lost the argument you could never post. These links are hilarious!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

RollingLaughter You sure seem thin skinned about it all.... Almost like you have doubts yourself! Of course, you would first have to have a modicum of intellectual honesty and just honesty in general, for there to be any doubt!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the propaganda whole without ever checking your sources

^^^The irony of this is thick, after seeing this earlier pwnage: PWNED!

 

[RollingThunder]

Tell that to the ice! Seems to me it has sure grown pretty damned deep in half a century don't you? Gosh you're blind.

LOL. So typical that a denier cult dimwit would imagine that un-sourced pictures are better 'evidence' for his delusions than the actual scientific evidence that debunks his myths.

Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study
November 22, 2009

Measurements of Winter Arctic Sea Ice Shows Continuing Ice Loss, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Mar. 30, 2011)

Ice Loss Accelerates in Greenland, Antarctica, NASA Study Finds
- Mar 9, 2011

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And there's one more thing that you don't understand. An 'appeal to authority' is considered a logical fallacy in a formal debate because it can be an attempt to say that something is true just because a supposed expert says it is true. However, in the real world, empirically, if the great majority of the experts in a given field say that all of the available research indicates a certain conclusion, then it's really strong odds that they are right. For example, virtually all of the medical experts now believe that smoking tobacco causes an increased incidence of various diseases, like cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is not a 'fallacy' to use such a fact as a valid argument in a debate about the dangers of tobacco smoking, if you can demonstrate the truth of that consensus.

From the Wikipedia article that you obviously failed to read or else couldn't comprehend:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted...The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument...The second form, citing a source who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct. In practical subjects such as car repair, an experienced mechanic who knows how to fix a certain car will be trusted to a greater degree than someone who is not an expert in car repair. There are many cases where one must rely on an expert, and cannot be reasonably expected to have the same experience, knowledge and skill that that person has. Many trust a surgeon without ever needing to know all the details about surgery themselves.

An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion, given the nature of truth and the Consensus theory of truth, because the fact that an authority says something does not necessarily make it so. The fact that, objectively, a proposition is in fact true or that it has good unrelated arguments supporting it will be what makes authorities believe it to be true.

As with all logical fallacies, the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority does not make its conclusion untrue (this line of thought is sometimes known as the logical fallacy fallacy) and does not make it unreasonable to believe the truth of the argument. It also must be noted that a rigorous concept of truth is a complex subject. In informal logic, the fact that a majority of experts in a given field believe X—for example, the fact that nearly all medical scientists think that HIV causes AIDS and reject AIDS denialism—makes it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe X.


The Skeptic's Dictionary - appeal to authority

Finally, it should be noted that it is not irrelevant to cite an authority to support a claim one is not competent to judge. However, in such cases the authority must be speaking in his or her own field of expertise and the claim should be one that other experts in the field do not generally consider to be controversial. In a field such as physics, it is reasonable to believe a claim about something in physics made by a physicist that most other physicists consider to be true. Presumably, they believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it.



Philosophical Society - Logical Fallacies

appeal to authority -- Known also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. The practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority.


So, dimwit, in the case of my post that you labeled as a fallacious 'appeal to authority', we have an article from physorg.com about a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, an article from ScienceDaily about some new data released by the scientists at the University of Colorado Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, and an article in Bloomberg News about a study by the scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal.
All experts in this field of study
The experts are in agreement
The research results were explicitly referenced and quoted


You lose again.

 

[RollingThunder]

Following Viner and his crew's instructions faithfully, you refer to skeptical people as "deniers," trying to lump them all in with Holocaust deniers.

Do you not see your religious devotion at work?

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the fossil fuel industry propaganda whole without ever checking your sources or showing any discrimination on what constitutes a reliable source for accurate scientific information and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.

The reasons for using the term “skeptics” to identify some of those who question climate science and “deniers” for others are discussed at:

* Evolution & Climate Deniers: The Redux Edition
* Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
* That “Denier vs Septic” thing again
* Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers
* How to be a real sceptic (RealClimate)
* About denialism
* Skepticism
* Climate change: The semantics of denial (George Monbiot)
* climate denial is not skepticism!
* Climate change deniers are ‘flat-earthers’
* Six Aspects of Denial
* Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution
* Climate Change Fundamentalism
* Climate change creationists
* Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
* Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians
* Why Global Warming is a Lie

Wow, if you change the term from denialist to alarmist quack they all work too!

A more sure sign they have lost the argument you could never post. These links are hilarious!

Once again you demonstrate that you are much too retarded to understand what is being said.

 

[polarbear]

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term
industry propaganda
accurate scientific information
and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.

the term “skeptics” to identify some of those who question climate science and “deniers” for others are discussed at:

greenfyre.wordpress.com_________

greenfyre.wordpress.comskeptics-contrarians-or-deniers/"]Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?____________

greenfyre.wordpress.comthat-denier-vs-septic-thing-again/#more-2959"]That “Denier vs Septic” thing again____________

greenfyre.wordpress.com/Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers[/URL]



anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/02/denialism-climate-change-holocaust.html"]Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution

one-blue-marble.com/blog/?p=302"Climate Change Fundamentalism

Holy fuck, we have someone who reads nothing but "greenfyre" and one-blue-marble.com/blog and lost most of his marbles giving us a "science lesson" here.

accurate scientific information

Isn`t that Robin,... OldRocks new gay boyfriend, after he broke up with Batman ?
Maybe not, but for sure he either is a caveman or lived in some sort of bat-cave all this time.

"OldRocks" too is throwing more urls up into the air in sheer desperation, the same crap as always...I`ll let my kids read them after they are done with their comics

 

[RollingThunder]

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term

Holy fuck, we have someone who reads nothing but "greenfyre" and one-blue-marble.com/blog and lost most of his marbles giving us a "science lesson" here.

accurate scientific information

You seem to be especially retarded even when compared to the ordinary retards in your ginned up cult of denial. It is obvious that you wouldn't know "accurate scientific information" if it bit you. I insult your intelligence because it is obvious that you have none. You lamely attempt to insult me over my supposed sexual orientation, which you obviously know nothing about, but that kind of jibe is standard fare for homos in denial. Attack in others what you hate in yourself. LOL. Idiot.

 

[westwall]

No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the fossil fuel industry propaganda whole without ever checking your sources or showing any discrimination on what constitutes a reliable source for accurate scientific information and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.

The reasons for using the term “skeptics” to identify some of those who question climate science and “deniers” for others are discussed at:

* Evolution & Climate Deniers: The Redux Edition
* Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
* That “Denier vs Septic” thing again
* Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers
* How to be a real sceptic (RealClimate)
* About denialism
* Skepticism
* Climate change: The semantics of denial (George Monbiot)
* climate denial is not skepticism!
* Climate change deniers are ‘flat-earthers’
* Six Aspects of Denial
* Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution
* Climate Change Fundamentalism
* Climate change creationists
* Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
* Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians
* Why Global Warming is a Lie

Wow, if you change the term from denialist to alarmist quack they all work too!

A more sure sign they have lost the argument you could never post. These links are hilarious!

Once again you demonstrate that you are much too retarded to understand what is being said.

When nothing of import is being said you need very little intellect to understand it, you are perfect for the job!

 

[RollingThunder]

Wow, if you change the term from denialist to alarmist quack they all work too!
A more sure sign they have lost the argument you could never post. These links are hilarious!

Once again you demonstrate that you are much too retarded to understand what is being said.

When nothing of import is being said you need very little intellect to understand it

Ah, but the problem is, walleyedretard, you lack even the minimal level of intellect that would be necessary in order to be able to discern when something of "import is being said".

Your problem really, is that you're so stupid you fall for the most idiotic nonsense and blatant propaganda from bad sources with an axe to grind. So stupid and ignorant are you that you reject the actual evidence and scientific testimony from every major scientific organization, society and national academy in the world in favor of silly lies and misinformation from the fossil fuel industry because it suits your political prejudices. You are a foolish dupe arguing from a position of ignorance and false beliefs. You are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier.

This piece describes you and some of the other deniers on this forum to a tee.

Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
(excerpt)

Differentiating between ‘Denier’, “a person who denies” and ‘Skeptic’ “a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual” hinges on their behaviour...

A survey of the standard denier websites...gives us a host of arguments that range from facile to fraudulent. They rely on distortions, misrepresentations, straw man arguments, cherry picking data, and in some cases, blatant lies.

~EDIT: Again, read and adhere to our posting rules regarding articles. - Moderator

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/144985-ok-listen-up.html

 

[wirebender]

I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?

You are asking him to accept observation in lieu of his religion, the models. That is a hell of a lot to ask a zealot to accept.

 

[RollingThunder]

I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?

You are asking him to accept observation in lieu of his religion, the models. That is a hell of a lot to ask a zealot to accept.

No, little cretin, walleyed is asking us to accept a couple of un-referenced pictures of some snow as evidence for or against anything. If you think those pictures 'prove' something about the scientifically measured ice loss in the Arctic, then I guess you're just as retarded and ignorant as walleyed. It seems like having an IQ below 80 is some kind of requirement for getting into your denier cult. Or maybe you just have to be that stupid to be gullible enough to fall for the anti-science bullcrap that is the foundation of your little cult of reality denial.

 

[westwall]

Once again you demonstrate that you are much too retarded to understand what is being said.

When nothing of import is being said you need very little intellect to understand it

Ah, but the problem is, walleyedretard, you lack even the minimal level of intellect that would be necessary in order to be able to discern when something of "import is being said".

Your problem really, is that you're so stupid you fall for the most idiotic nonsense and blatant propaganda from bad sources with an axe to grind. So stupid and ignorant are you that you reject the actual evidence and scientific testimony from every major scientific organization, society and national academy in the world in favor of silly lies and misinformation from the fossil fuel industry because it suits your political prejudices. You are a foolish dupe arguing from a position of ignorance and false beliefs. You are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier.

This piece describes you and some of the other deniers on this forum to a tee.

Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
(excerpt)

Differentiating between ‘Denier’, “a person who denies” and ‘Skeptic’ “a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual” hinges on their behaviour...

A survey of the standard denier websites...gives us a host of arguments that range from facile to fraudulent. They rely on distortions, misrepresentations, straw man arguments, cherry picking data, and in some cases, blatant lies.

~EDIT: Again, read and adhere to our posting rules regarding articles. - Moderator

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/144985-ok-listen-up.html

Here's the perfect description of you and your movement....
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion





Cult Definition

 

[westwall]

I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?

You are asking him to accept observation in lieu of his religion, the models. That is a hell of a lot to ask a zealot to accept.

No, little cretin, walleyed is asking us to accept a couple of un-referenced pictures of some snow as evidence for or against anything. If you think those pictures 'prove' something about the scientifically measured ice loss in the Arctic, then I guess you're just as retarded and ignorant as walleyed. It seems like having an IQ below 80 is some kind of requirement for getting into your denier cult. Or maybe you just have to be that stupid to be gullible enough to fall for the anti-science bullcrap that is the foundation of your little cult of reality denial.

Unreferenced or not show us ANYPLACE ON THE PLANET WHERE 85 FEET OF ICE IS NO BIG DEAL! You fools are burning in a pit of gasoline and think the little bit of smoke is important! You guys are a hoot!