(CNN) -- The complete melting of a major section of west Antarctica's ice sheet appears inevitable, and the process could lead to higher end-of-century global sea levels than previously anticipated, researchers said Monday.
Give me access to a big enough government research grant, and I'll believe in global warming too.
It's comical but also really f*cking scary how accurate that is. You have an entire science "field" based on the support of a single theory. No wonder why everyone in that field "supports" that theory.
(CNN) -- The complete melting of a major section of west Antarctica's ice sheet appears inevitable, and the process could lead to higher end-of-century global sea levels than previously anticipated, researchers said Monday.
Give me access to a big enough government research grant, and I'll believe in global warming too.
It's comical but also really f*cking scary how accurate that is. You have an entire science "field" based on the support of a single theory. No wonder why everyone in that field "supports" that theory.
(CNN) -- The complete melting of a major section of west Antarctica's ice sheet appears inevitable, and the process could lead to higher end-of-century global sea levels than previously anticipated, researchers said Monday.
Highlighted the important parts.
Chanti appears to be addicted to heroine which could lead to his death much earlier then previously anticipated.
This is not an attack on you, merely demonstrating that by using non-quantitative words I can say anything I want and not be wrong. The media does this all the time in an attempt to manipulate your emotions. The human mind perceives words like "appear, could, might, should, may, possibly, ect." as replacements for "will and does".
The article presents the possibility and you've interpreted it as a certainty.
Also another note. There is no such thing as "global sea levels", the planet isn't flat and gravity exists. Dumping massive amounts of water into the ocean wouldn't raise the water by the same amount everywhere due to the Ocean having more volume in some area's then others. That larger volume creates a slight gravitational pull which results in the water not being divided up evenly. This is a field they are just now starting to really scratch the surface of.
Give me access to a big enough government research grant, and I'll believe in global warming too.
It's comical but also really f*cking scary how accurate that is. You have an entire science "field" based on the support of a single theory. No wonder why everyone in that field "supports" that theory.
Show me proof that it's accurate.
The mere existence of that coincidence should justify anyone's skepticism.
As for proof, how about co2 levels are at record levels and temps have remained flat for 15 years.
Give me access to a big enough government research grant, and I'll believe in global warming too.
It's comical but also really f*cking scary how accurate that is. You have an entire science "field" based on the support of a single theory. No wonder why everyone in that field "supports" that theory.
Show me proof that it's accurate.
The mere existence of that coincidence should justify anyone's skepticism.
As for proof, how about co2 levels are at record levels and temps have remained flat for 15 years.
Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has begun. Less certain is the time scale, with the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.
Quote:
Collapse in the imagination of most people sounds like a catastrophic event that is going to happen in the next few years. We are talking about a retreat that is unstoppable because we think we have enough evidence to say that these glaciers will keep retreating for decades and even centuries to come…. We’re talking about a slow degradation of ice in this part of Antarctica.
So yeah "eminent collapse" is used in geological time terms.
Guys what we are witnessing is the slow changing of the earth's climate and ice distribution. This happens all the time, it just happens in geological time. The only difference is this time humans have the technology to actually measure and record it instead of just painting on cave walls.
The second attempt at making a "consensus" appears to have errors.
Quote:
Dr. Richard Tol writes about a new revelation coming from an analysis of Cook’s climate publications volunteer raters, conducted by Brandon Shollenberger:
Dr. Tol writes
Quote:
My comment on Cook’s consensus paper has at last been accepted. It was rejected by three journals — twice by Environmental Research Letters and once by two other journals for being out of scope. Fifth time lucky.
As these things go, my comment is out of date before it is published.
One of my main concerns was the partial release of data. The data that was available suggests that all sorts of weird things were going on, but without the full data it was hard to pinpoint what went on. Cook’s resistance to release the data, abetted by the editor, the publisher and the University of Queensland, suggested that he may have something to hide.
Brandon Shollenberger has now found part of the missing data.
Unfortunately, time stamps are still missing. These would allow us to check whether fatigue may have affected the raters, and whether all raters were indeed human.
Rater IDs are available now. I hope Shollenberger will release the data in good time. For now, we have to do with his tests and graphs.
His comment of May 10, 1:16 am shows that individual raters systematically differed in their assessment of the literature. This is illustrated by this figure; the circles are aligned if the raters are the same.
This undermines Cook’s paper. Theirs was not a survey of the literature. Rather, it was a survey of the raters.
There were only 12 raters (24 at first, but half dropped out), picked for their belief in the cause.
More links, papers and data in the WUWT article. I like how WUWT always sources their articles and makes it easy to verify everything. They don't hide data or misrepresent publications.
Guys what we are witnessing is the slow changing of the earth's climate and ice distribution. This happens all the time, it just happens in geological time. The only difference is this time humans have the technology to actually measure and record it instead of just painting on cave walls.
Shhhh. Don't tell them that. It will hurt their corporate profits for scaremongering.
He basically says that in order for catastrophic warming predictions to be true, they should hold some relevance to the historical warming we've already experienced. They don't!
Guys what we are witnessing is the slow changing of the earth's climate and ice distribution. This happens all the time, it just happens in geological time. The only difference is this time humans have the technology to actually measure and record it instead of just painting on cave walls.
Shhhh. Don't tell them that. It will hurt their corporate profits for scaremongering.
Since when are you against corporate profits? Orrrrrr is this just not your brand of fear mongering?
Obama’s fiscal year 2014 request for $2.7 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which cuts across 13 federal agencies.
In contrast, Obama’s National Weather Service budget request for 2014 was $1.05 billion, split about 90 percent for operations and research and 10 percent for construction and acquisition.
Why do anything constructive, when clearly all the money is in research and scams based in fear?
Guys what we are witnessing is the slow changing of the earth's climate and ice distribution. This happens all the time, it just happens in geological time. The only difference is this time humans have the technology to actually measure and record it instead of just painting on cave walls.
Shhhh. Don't tell them that. It will hurt their corporate profits for scaremongering.
Since when are you against corporate profits? Orrrrrr is this just not your brand of fear mongering?
I'm not the one against corporate profits. It's the same people who bought into "manmade global warming because Gore said so" scam by Al Gore.
Yet the 2014 budget only has 400 million marked for fusion research.
Nearly 4bn USD for research affirming global warming *cough* "climate change", yet less then 0.5bn for a permanent solution to the theoretical cause.
With so much money available to anyone who can "prove" we're all about to die if we don't stop making CO2 no wonder there are so many articles purporting to do exactly that.
Koch brothers / evil Oil my f*cking ***, no way in hell are they spending 4bn USD to "prove AGW wrong". If anyone's being bought it's the "Climate Change" crowd.
This is moronic. If anthropogenic global warming theory is so readily disprovable, then post something that disproves it.
No idiotic cartoons. No strawmen. Post actual *** science.
If you're still waiting on conclusive evidence, it is not because there is a lack of any. It is because you're intentionally ignoring it.
This is moronic. If anthropogenic global warming theory is so readily disprovable, then post something that disproves it.
No idiotic cartoons. No strawmen. Post actual *** science.
If you're still waiting on conclusive evidence, it is not because there is a lack of any. It is because you're intentionally ignoring it.
This is moronic. If anthropogenic global warming theory is so readily disprovable, then post something that disproves it.
No idiotic cartoons. No strawmen. Post actual *** science.
If you're still waiting on conclusive evidence, it is not because there is a lack of any. It is because you're intentionally ignoring it.
You have to prove god doesn't exist in order to do that.
This is moronic. If anthropogenic global warming theory is so readily disprovable, then post something that disproves it.
No idiotic cartoons. No strawmen. Post actual *** science.
If you're still waiting on conclusive evidence, it is not because there is a lack of any. It is because you're intentionally ignoring it.
You have to prove god doesn't exist in order to do that.
Well, I don't know about god, but it's pretty evident that prayer doesn't do much other than make matters worst.
Quote:
In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28)
Well, I don't know about god, but it's pretty evident that prayer doesn't do much other than make matters worst.
Quote:
In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28)
Maybe you guys are praying to the wrong god and he's getting mad?
Gasp, maybe it's not AGW but GGW?
That's because you need to action after praying. Praying alone does nothing but help you think out loud. You still need to do something rather than hope something will happen.
You have to prove god doesn't exist in order to do that.
I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you might be stupid, so I'll ask you if you are just trying to provoke..
Provoke a different way of thinking sure. As you cannot prove a negative, only poke holes in it at best. Asking someone to disprove something that they themselves cannot prove makes no sense.
A very extensive report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was released earlier this week. Nothing in the report is particularly surprising, but its presentation for the general public, here, is incredibly impressive. (Not all government website releases are a disaster!)
If hardcore technical reports aren't your thing, the highlights portion of the site breaks each section down as plainly as possible, is extensively cited, and makes no secret the level of uncertainty inherent in current findings. The site is really quite fantastic, and I would encourage anyone with genuine interest, skepticism, and/or curiosity in U.S. climate change to fuck around in it for a while. (Of course, if well-substantiated, easily digestible scientific communications aren't your thing, there's always this.)
Perhaps, the most poignant message arising from the report is summarized in this quote from the article:
Quote:
The report pointed out that while the country as a whole still had no comprehensive climate legislation, many states and cities had begun to take steps to limit emissions and to adapt to climatic changes that can no longer be avoided. But the report found that these efforts were inadequate.
I don't really consider myself a policy person so... what do?
Edit: Also of note is the high diversity of those involved. Largely scientists, of course, but representative of a wide swath of interests, including some oil companies.
