2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[SSDD]

SSDD -

You know, if I thought you believed half of the nonsense you post, I'd be worried for you.

But I don't.

I have already explained to you a couple of times that the overwhelming majority of science conducted on climate science is not tagged to specific units of funding. Universities in most of the developed world are bulk funded - they do not apply for funding for specific projects.

Your "theory" is simply a nonsense, and I think we can be fairly sure you know that too.

Then it is obvious that you have never taken the time to follow the money. Not suprising since it is obvious that you have an intravenious drip of the kool aid going at all times. If your claim of bulk funding vs specific grants is true, then the opportunity for corruption increases by orders of magnitude as there is no accountablity for individual projects and therefore no accountablity for expenditures.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?

ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more.

Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre.

Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?

 

[ima]

SSDD -

Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?

ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more.

Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre.

Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?

Research into global warming is a TOTAL waste of time, money and brainpower. So what if the planet is warming? Move away from the coast, that's ALL there is to it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD -

Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?

ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more.

Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre.

Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD -

Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?

ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more.

Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre.

Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?

They fake the research for the Benjamins

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?

Once again because you are obviously too stupid to have understood the last half a dozen times I explained to you that a grand conspiracy is not necessary....I know it is a leap for you and difficult to actually learn something new, but consider the principle of an error cascade. Poor data in the beginnings of a field of research which is taken as factual when in fact it is not. Each and every bit of research that takes that poor data as fact is then rendered flawed and each bit of research after that assumes prior reseach was correct is then flawed by the initial poor data...and on and on till you have what we are looking at in climate science today.

I have asked you several times to provide some hard evidence that the Trenberth energy budget and resulting model is correct since every bit of climate science and all models that we have today simply assumes it is correct. IT IS NOT correct and therefore every shred of research which has assumed that it was correct is flawed, which amounts to all of it.

When you build a whole branch of science on flawed initial data, you get models making predictions that don't happen and a never ending cycle of tweaking the models to reflect current conditions.

ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more.

In a system in which money didn't rule all, you would be right. Such is not the case. NASA, GISS, NOAA, NCDC, CRU, and others have been caught red handed altering data....who has castigated them? You and yours won't even acknowledge inarguable evidence of tampering. You refuse to see the proof of data fabrication and go right on telling the same old lies. That is the nature of your side of the argument.

Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre.

Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.

Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?

No, because I am able to look at it for what it is. You on the other hand deny incontrovertable data and continue with your same old tired lies. You can't face the truth that you and yours have been wrong in every prediction and have fabricated data in an attempt to hide the errors.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

The chart is there on the front page, and explains things fairly clearly, I think.

This is an area of Alaska where we have been able to generate an excellent geologic record of glacial retreat, they are doing the same in other areas, and the results are looking to be very similar.

Amazingly enough, whenever one of your claims is actually tested it fails. They have all failed. How do you explain that?

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?

ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more.

Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre.

Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?

So....where is Phil Jones raw data that has supported the grant writings of the CRU for the last 20 years?

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall -

Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

The chart is there on the front page, and explains things fairly clearly, I think.

This is an area of Alaska where we have been able to generate an excellent geologic record of glacial retreat, they are doing the same in other areas, and the results are looking to be very similar.

Amazingly enough, whenever one of your claims is actually tested it fails. They have all failed. How do you explain that?

How do you explain claiming to be a geologist and posting such stupidity?

Glacier Retreat in Alaska

AOL Search

AOL Search

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I suggest you do a little research on glaciers and try to come up with something more meaningful to offer. At the moment you simpy aren't posting anything intelligent enough to warrant a response.

Again - 97% of glaciers in the world are retreating. Claiming you know one which isn't is simply disingenuous.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.

Again, you simply can not possibly believe this nonsense.

If you want to be a scpetic, then go with that, but at least try and come up with some kind of reason to deny science which isn't just that every university in the world is part of some giant conspiracy. And yes - it would be a giant conspiracy and not an "error cascade".

If every developed country in the world monitors its own climate independently - and we know they do - how could there be an "error cascade"?

You need to try to think this stuff through, rather than just flail away with whatever excuse springs to mind first.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.

Again, you simply can not possibly believe this nonsense.

If you want to be a scpetic, then go with that, but at least try and come up with some kind of reason to deny science which isn't just that every university in the world is part of some giant conspiracy. And yes - it would be a giant conspiracy and not an "error cascade".

If every developed country in the world monitors its own climate independently - and we know they do - how could there be an "error cascade"?

You need to try to think this stuff through, rather than just flail away with whatever excuse springs to mind first.

This post from the very person who started a thread complaining about illiterates and their opinions.

Oh the irony....

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I am not saying SSDD is illiterate. He is just a person with extremely blinkered thinking. As are you, of course.

In both cases I'd say both of you also seem to be severely hampered by an almost biological inability to admit error.

 

[ima]

Westwall -
Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier
The chart is there on the front page, and explains things fairly clearly, I think.

This is an area of Alaska where we have been able to generate an excellent geologic record of glacial retreat, they are doing the same in other areas, and the results are looking to be very similar.
Amazingly enough, whenever one of your claims is actually tested it fails. They have all failed. How do you explain that?

Ok, but so what if the glaciers are retreating? Why should I care? The earth has been even warmer than this several times throughout its history. Why should I give a fuck now?

 

[IanC]

SSDD -

Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.

Again, you simply can not possibly believe this nonsense.

If you want to be a scpetic, then go with that, but at least try and come up with some kind of reason to deny science which isn't just that every university in the world is part of some giant conspiracy. And yes - it would be a giant conspiracy and not an "error cascade".

If every developed country in the world monitors its own climate independently - and we know they do - how could there be an "error cascade"?

You need to try to think this stuff through, rather than just flail away with whatever excuse springs to mind first.

Iceland has very good temperature records. why have the global temperature datasets changed them without explanation and contrary to actual physical historical evidence?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.

the problem is that it is not just one! there are no perfectly good reasons being put forth either, although they have been asked for. just a generic "look at our methodology" which does not explain the changes. most skeptics are strictly volunteer and most of the organizations involved are very chary of releasing any of the actual inner workings of their methodologies which do not seem to apply to many of the problem cases pointed out to them.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

It might be worth questioning your own sources.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some sceptic out there is "confused" about the temperature record adjustments. It has happened before, after all.

 

[IanC]

Ian C -

It might be worth questioning your own sources.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some sceptic out there is "confused" about the temperature record adjustments. It has happened before, after all.

the Icelandic Met Office is confused as to why their measurements are being 'corrected' because they ahve already made the appropriate adjustments for existing station moves etc.

while I agree that corrections for time of measurement bias and other reasons are necessary but sometimes misunderstood, I also think that the methodology exaggerates the trend in particular. other corrections like for the UHI effect seem to be confused or ignored which also seem to exaggerate the trend towards warming.

I wish that a dedicated accounting firm would clean up the obvious mistakes in identification instead of the scientific organizations which are seemingly not interested in doing the grunt work of having good basic data to put into their prized computer programs.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ian C -

It might be worth questioning your own sources.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some sceptic out there is "confused" about the temperature record adjustments. It has happened before, after all.

the Icelandic Met Office is confused as to why their measurements are being 'corrected' because they ahve already made the appropriate adjustments for existing station moves etc.

while I agree that corrections for time of measurement bias and other reasons are necessary but sometimes misunderstood, I also think that the methodology exaggerates the trend in particular. other corrections like for the UHI effect seem to be confused or ignored which also seem to exaggerate the trend towards warming.

I wish that a dedicated accounting firm would clean up the obvious mistakes in identification instead of the scientific organizations which are seemingly not interested in doing the grunt work of having good basic data to put into their prized computer programs.

It seems to come to the fact that you and the other denier cultists are too ignorant about science to know what you're talking about. You don't understand why climate scientists are working with the data in some way so you assume that they must be wrong or deliberately altering the data to achieve a certain result. LOL. It's your ignorance, not the scientific methodology that is the problem. Too bad you're too brainwashed to recognize that fact.