quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Wow, gotto love cherry picked articles. The first one, which has a clear anti AGW bias, should be ignored for obvious reasons as it has 0 credibility in the field of science. As to the second, I love how you miss this little nugget:

quote:


Knowledge of the heat distribution beneath Thwaites Glacier is crucial information that enables ice sheet modelers to more accurately predict the response of the glacier to the presence of a warming ocean.

This research in no way refutes that the ocean or climate is warming, it simply adds to the already established understanding of a warming ocean and atmosphere to better understand the melting process of the Antarctic ice sheets. Got any more cherry picked science you'd like to provide?

And I love how you don't even understand that the two articles are linked by the term "natural causes" in the first article nor do you apparently understand that the two articles are about the same findings by the same group at the same university.

Hmmmmm...do you suppose your outlook might have anything to do with the fact that the first article (same subject material as the second article) came from Breitbart? I'll bet it does.

I think you missed this little tidbit, no matter how minor it is. "But according to a new report from the Institute For Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt may not, after all, be the direct result of man’s selfishness, greed, and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle. Rather, it seems, it is the result of natural causes.

Lol, I didn't miss it at all, I do know that it's about the same exact article. But your quote isn't something the researchers said, it was what the author himself from Breitbart stated. It wasn't written as a quote, it was his own personal opinion as a journalist, not a researcher. If you're going to quote someone, quote the researchers themselves, or at the very least quote a source more renowned for their legitimacy when it comes to science. Cherry pick away, because you just keep missing the big picture.

Also it wasn't the exact same content as the second, because first off, there is no where in the second article the term "alarmist" which is indicative of deniers such as the author of the first link. No where in the second article do they even claim that this negates what is known about climate change. Seriously, did you even read either of them?

Then difference between the first article and the second article is the first one imposes the author's bias and opinion on the research, while the second merely states the findings, what the research means and where it could lead in future endeavours to further understand the antarctic. If you can't see that then you really need to figure out the difference between opinions and science.

Oh, I get it...you might want to practice a bit of it yourself. You might want to look again...I never said it was the same content. Nor did I make a claim that they do any denial of global warming. As a matter of fact, while they note the effect of the sea water on the ice and the heat from below, they never mention a word about the effect of CO2 on the ice.

"The combination of variable subglacial geothermal heat flow and the interacting subglacial water system could threaten the stability of Thwaites Glacier in ways that we never before imagined," Schroeder said.

...seriously? They never mention a word on the effect of CO2 on the ice, BECAUSE the gas CO2 doesn't directly affect the ice. Your entire argument is based on ignorance regarding the properties of CO2, nice job, way to swing the argument in your favour. Here's a little elementary climate science: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that it traps and re-radiates infrared radiation which was originally meant to escape back out into space after being reflected off the earth's surface. This warms the atmosphere and by extension, the land, ocean, and yes, even ice such as glaciers and the antarctic ice sheets. This is called the greenhouse effect, which is what keeps our world within a range of temperatures suitable for life, and is maintained through a variety of natural, non human affected methods such as weathering and volcanic eruptions, just to name a couple. CO2 itself has no effect on ice, the only issue regarding the gas is that it traps heat and this extra energy results in a variety of climatic changes beyond simple warming (hence the reason why we call it climate change instead of global warming these days, since it's more accurate to what's happening.)

This is high school science dude, if you can't get that right, then what reason do you have to refute the science of 97% of the industry's professionals?

Edit to add:
In the case I mistook your statement about them not mentioning CO2's impact on the ice (which I now assume you meant to say they didn't mention a warmer ocean & atmosphere's impact on the ice), the reason they never mentioned it was because they weren't looking at how a warming ocean and atmosphere affected the ice. They were looking at what other contributions to the decreasing ice might exist, and by not mentioning a warming climate's impacts does not mean that a warming climate has NO impacts on the melting ice or that there is no warming climate so to speak. Climate change is established science, each and every scientific article doesn't need to reiterate something as established and well understood as climate change, and even if they dont it's not an omission that climate change isn't happening. I mean, I dont think Harry Potter or any of the other characters in the story mentioned the bible or jesus christ, does that mean Harry and all his friends were satanists? Seriously, if that's the logic you're thinking with then it's pretty backward when you think it through.

quote:

The classic example is Galileo discovering that the earth was not the center of the universe. His discovery was rejected out of hand by establishment conservatives of his era.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I'll admit you do have a point, it is a fallacy argument to resort to arguments based on authority or arguments based on popularity. They're arguments I've used, and I admit I really shouldn't, as it's not an argument point based on the facts. However it must be said, there has yet to be a single argument against climate change that wasn't in some form rooted in ignorance or a misunderstanding of how our global climate works. So while I and others may have used the authority and popularity fallacies in the past, deniers such as yourself make just as many argument fallacies, the fallacy of appealing from ignorance, which in some ways can be even worse as you truly have no other way to form an argument.

Playing the "denier" card is the functional equivalent of crying "heresy!"

When the predictions of a theory are not confirmed by observation, the theory is wrong. Whether or not the Earth is actually warming is irrelevant. The theory's predictions of how much it would warm have not been confirmed by observation. Therefore, the theory is wrong. Or at best incomplete, but even that's being charitable. More troubling is the fact that the IPCC itself acknowledged 14 years ago that predicting the future state of a non-linear chaotic system on decadal scales is impossible.

Kindly tell us what, precisely, is fallacious or ignorant about the above.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

given that people's single greatest talent is self-justification, us flat-earthers could point out to the global warming/climate change folks their mistakes, or present legitimate alternate interpretations to research until the cows come home...and they will still go on believing what they want to believe, in large part, because they lack the humility to say "you know what, I was wrong" or even "I could be wrong."

that said---cloudboy, you bring up an excellent point---but bear with me:

quote:

The classic example is Galileo discovering that the earth was not the center of the universe. His discovery was rejected out of hand by establishment conservatives of his era.

apart from that you have no basis to call any one from that time period an " establishment conservative" and by implication, liken them to conservatives of today, and that the whole thing with galileo was very complex far beyond what you just said (so your simplistic explanation is misleading), let me ask:

which side today is actually condemning the other, criticizing the other as heresy, pillorying the subjects, and suppressing (not to mention changing) data that runs contrary to the preferred narrative?


I noticed the "world wide consensus" line in your post---you might have missed it, but no such thing exists.

I previously posted a link to a report made by, and a collection of comments from, over a thousand "crack pots" with phd's who have spent their lives in the field of climate science, or fields directly related to it, that run contrary to if not rough shod over the global warming/climate change arguments. how that, coupled with how wrong the global warming people have gotten it over the past handful of decades, and how they have been caught manipulating things, should be enough for a rational person to say "enuff said"---that that doesn't occur, tells me that something else is going on besides reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

The movie The Day After Tomorrow is on right now. The umteenth time I have seen it. But it presents the theory that our global warming will cause the next ice age. I like this theory. But then I like most theories

For those doubters that want swcientific evidence I site a class I took in college. the prof asked my opinion on Shakespere Now I hate the arthur and think his works make no sense and should be striken from the school as a required course. I failed the class. Aparently the prof didn't like my opinion. It varied from the main stream so therefore must be wrong. My opinion should have been his. And no I didn't complete college. Partly because of idiots wanting my opinion and then failing me for it and for other more personal reasons.

quote:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Playing the "denier" card is the functional equivalent of crying "heresy!"

When the predictions of a theory are not confirmed by observation, the theory is wrong. Whether or not the Earth is actually warming is irrelevant. The theory's predictions of how much it would warm have not been confirmed by observation. Therefore, the theory is wrong. Or at best incomplete, but even that's being charitable. More troubling is the fact that the IPCC itself acknowledged 14 years ago that predicting the future state of a non-linear chaotic system on decadal scales is impossible.

Kindly tell us what, precisely, is fallacious or ignorant about the above.

What's ignorant about it is that we have observed exactly what the theory predicts; a changing climate from an increase in energy within the climate system, mainly the atmosphere.

Pay special attention to the pretty red words. It doesn't matter whether or not the Earth is warming. The theory's predictions have failed repeatedly, and it is abundantly clear that it is either wrong or inadequate. To claim otherwise is ignorant, and to go further and claim that "we have observed exactly what the theory predicts" is just making shit up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Models don't predict what will happen 100%, they offer a range of the most probable outcomes, and as I stated before its next to impossible to account for EVERY variable on an entire PLANET.

Given our current level of understanding and computational resources, 100% accuracy isn't just "next to" impossible, it's impossible period. That's the point. But 100% honesty is not impossible, and anyone who was honest would be willing to admit that we don't really fully understand what's going on, and that our models have failed to capture it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
An example of how junk science takes over from mainstream science

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415100/victory-academic-freedom-and-defeat-junk-environmental-science-david-french

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
So lets see. Ocean Temperatures rise http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html

Northern precipitation should increase http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#Ice

So the theory of a mega storm could be possible as outlined in the scifi movie. It's a theory. Not based in fact because it isn't based in fact until it is proven, then it is no longer a theory.

It seems to me that you fail to understand the purpose of theories vs fact Additionally, I wonder if you understand the relationship that some people have with challenging fact vs those that say that once a fact is determined, it should never be challenged. An example, the world is flat vs those that believe the world is round.