What the science says

[LaDexter]

please prove your claim that the ice in the antarctic is growing,

your claim isn t a scientific prove

its just hot air

Two sides disagree.

Two sides go to court.

The court rules.

The side that lost does not appeal.


That is the reality of the debate on Antarctic ice - court ruled it is growing because that is what the data always said, and the "warmer" fudge got "baked"
and then chickened out from appealing.... and here we still have the same noise "I'm parroting, so I'm right, because I am the birdbrain who is parroting"



2007 = court certified

2016 - NASA certified...

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

 

[hauke]

whats the nummbers for 2009 to 2016 ?

 

[LaDexter]

That article doesn't say, but the thing grows every year. So groweth the AA sea ice, with 5 all time record highs since O took office.

 

[westwall]

please prove your claim that the ice in the antarctic is growing,

your claim isn t a scientific prove

its just hot air

Here you go. No problem at all.


"Last week a study was published in the Journal of Glaciology by a group of NASA researchers reporting that satellite data shows that, as a whole, Antarctica has been gaining—rather than losing—ice mass during the past two or more decades."



What's Going on in Antarctica? Is the Ice Melting or Growing?

 

[SSDD]

i think its a fail to argue with people bought by fossile fuel about climate change.
these people are paied to denie the truth science proves, they lie and disort facts.

to argue with them gives them more power then they deserve.

their moral values are in the pits they only care about the money they cash in their accounts, truth does not matter

just don t argue with liars

You think that people bought by a whole lot more government, and green special interest money are somehow more honorable? We are asking for evidence to support the claims of warmers and the warmers can't deliver...show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...I know that you can't do it because none exists....and yet, you still believe those bought by government and environmental special interests....why might that be?

 

[SSDD]

Just you.

When you take a position that is rejected by almost 100% of the experts, it becomes extremely difficult to accept your criticism of other's science or your accusations that others are delusional.

Show us some of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly convinced that 97%...by now, we all know that you can't produce...so upon what is that claimed consensus based?

 

[SSDD]

your using a propaganda film as a dispute to science, that film was not science

whatever, your not accesible to reason anyway

Can you provide any evidence at all that anyone at all in mainstream climate science stepped up to the microphone and said that algore's film was a propaganda film?...we both know that you can't...In law, silence implies consent so it is clear that so long as the film was making headlines, climate science was just fine with it....that is the nature of climate science and their supporters in the press.....now that it has been shown to be a crock of $h!t...you guys call it a propaganda film...why didn't you call it such before it was shown to be nothing but baseless alarmism.

 

[jc456]

as i said they are liars without any respect to science, only theire lies matter

point : do those people ever give any evidence to theire lies ?

nope and what I've been saying for four years here. the warmers just can't produce.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I love science. I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.

Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science, and winning accolades for exposing fraud?

Something illogical with your mind

Let us know when a scientist wins a Nobel for proving AGW as a fact.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

Dealing with 'people like you' on this level is akin to dealing with the 9/11 Truthers or other conspiracists.

Getting stuck in the weeds with circular arguments, and debating the minutiae without any possibility of a resolution? No thanks.

Neither of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.

You are attacking the scientific community. Fine. You are saying scientists are on the take for grants, and are all unethical and corrupt. Fine. You demand to be taken seriously. Fine.

What is even finer, is I do not have to respect any of your harebrained opinions, in order to show respect to the principle that; you are entitled to have opinions, no matter how wrongheaded or harebrained they be.

Niether of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.

You don't have to be a climate scientist if you have been following it since the 1970s

Also, people in these forums have their specialtys , like mine is in plastic manufacturing and I have 30 years of expertise using temperature monitoring equipment, I know the history of it and I know how people pencil whip data.

No way in hell can you compare temperature data of the 1900s to today's ultra modern ultra accurate data and say the earth warmed up .04 degree in a 100 years with a straight face.

 

[SSDD]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

Dealing with 'people like you' on this level is akin to dealing with the 9/11 Truthers or other conspiracists.

Getting stuck in the weeds with circular arguments, and debating the minutiae without any possibility of a resolution? No thanks.

Neither of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.

You are attacking the scientific community. Fine. You are saying scientists are on the take for grants, and are all unethical and corrupt. Fine. You demand to be taken seriously. Fine.

What is even finer, is I do not have to respect any of your harebrained opinions, in order to show respect to the principle that; you are entitled to have opinions, no matter how wrongheaded or harebrained they be.

Niether of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.

You don't have to be a climate scientist if you have been following it since the 1970s

Also, people in these forums have their specialtys , like mine is in plastic manufacturing and I have 30 years of expertise using temperature monitoring equipment, I know the history of it and I know how people pencil whip data.

No way in hell can you compare temperature data of the 1900s to today's ultra modern ultra accurate data and say the earth warmed up .04 degree in a 100 years with a straight face.

Interesting how willing these people are to acknowledge their abject ignorance and dependence upon someone else to tell them what to think...sad really, since climate science is at best a soft science...certainly not in the same league as molecular biology or any of the hard sciences....guess they depend on the weather channel to tell them what it is like outside before they go and pick up the paper.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

Dealing with 'people like you' on this level is akin to dealing with the 9/11 Truthers or other conspiracists.

Getting stuck in the weeds with circular arguments, and debating the minutiae without any possibility of a resolution? No thanks.

Neither of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.

You are attacking the scientific community. Fine. You are saying scientists are on the take for grants, and are all unethical and corrupt. Fine. You demand to be taken seriously. Fine.

What is even finer, is I do not have to respect any of your harebrained opinions, in order to show respect to the principle that; you are entitled to have opinions, no matter how wrongheaded or harebrained they be.

Niether of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.

You don't have to be a climate scientist if you have been following it since the 1970s

Also, people in these forums have their specialtys , like mine is in plastic manufacturing and I have 30 years of expertise using temperature monitoring equipment, I know the history of it and I know how people pencil whip data.

No way in hell can you compare temperature data of the 1900s to today's ultra modern ultra accurate data and say the earth warmed up .04 degree in a 100 years with a straight face.

Interesting how willing these people are to acknowledge their abject ignorance and dependence upon someone else to tell them what to think...sad really, since climate science is at best a soft science...certainly not in the same league as molecular biology or any of the hard sciences....guess they depend on the weather channel to tell them what it is like outside before they go and pick up the paper.

Interesting how willing these people are to acknowledge their abject ignorance

Considering your "smart photons", that's hilarious!

 

[SSDD]

It never fails to amuse me how some of you wackos believe that a theoretical particle...or any particle for that matter must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics....do you think electrons must possess some sort of intelligence to know which direction they must move along a wire?

It is particularly funny that you are willing to follow old rocks into his fantasy...of all the people to look to as a role model.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It never fails to amuse me how some of you wackos believe that a theoretical particle...or any particle for that matter must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics....do you think electrons must possess some sort of intelligence to know which direction they must move along a wire?

It is particularly funny that you are willing to follow old rocks into his fantasy...of all the people to look to as a role model.

It's even funnier that some think matter "knows" when to emit and stops emitting if something warmer, thousands of light years away, will come "into view" in the future.

Those photons are smart and they can predict the future!!! Who needs physics....SSDD has magic!!!

 

[hauke]

i set of data isn t prove.

do you have more then 1 dataset ?

1 dataset would make a hyphosis not a theorie

 

[hauke]

oh why do i even argue with neolithic mentality

 

[hauke]

btw no human being can produce as much nonsense as toddsterpatriot, so its obviouse that a nummber of people use that alias

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

btw no human being can produce as much nonsense as toddsterpatriot, so its obviouse that a nummber of people use that alias

Tell me more.

List some of my nonsense.

 

[hauke]

toddsterpatriot has been identified as a propaganda tool for big oil and coal

that account isn t a real person its a mouthpiece for admen from chicago

but they fucked up, no single human can post that much

no single human can post 24 hours a day for years

 

[LaDexter]

No, toddster thinks 757s can fly 8 feet off the ground while their engines are in the ground....