Arctic vs Antarctic Ice

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I think it is a far conclusion to say that if you HAD read the THREE major scientific studies linked, you would have been willing and able to discuss them.

You have not been, and are not able to.

It really is as simple as that.

they were not first class papers and second they were little more than opinion pieces

Really?

The British Antarctic Survey:

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has a long and distinguished history of carrying out research and surveys in the Antarctic and surrounding regions, undertaking most of the British research on the frozen continent. The close linking of our science programmes with essential logistics support makes us very effective in carrying out the complicated and sophisticated scientific field programmes that are necessary today.

As a major research centre of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), we:

Provide a national capability for Antarctic science and logistics
Carry out scientific research, long-term observations and surveys that cannot be done by anyone else in the UK
Provide a focus for international co-operation and programme co-ordination
Concentrate on issues fundamental to NERC’s science strategy and conservation of the Antarctic environment.

This is one recent study:

GSAC comprises eight programmes totalling 19 projects. Its components are highly interconnected so that the sum will be greater than the parts. The content makes full use of the BAS Antarctic infrastructure and builds on the successes of previous BAS research, survey and monitoring while shifting our focus to exciting new areas. The quality of the programme’s content was assured through competition and by independent, rigorous, international peer review. Carrying it out involves over 120 national and international collaborations. As opportunities arise, new scientific and technical knowledge will be transferred to the private sector for the commercial benefit of the UK. Getting the public interested and engaging them in discourse will be a major priority.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/our_organisation/what_we_do.php

Because that doesn't really sound like they would write "an opinion piece", does it?!!

Are you absolutely sure you read this research, SSDD??!!

 

[SSDD]

Are you absolutely sure you read this research, SSDD??!!

Q: Published in which journal?

A: Self published.

There was nothing in any of your opinion pieces that represented proof of anything....speculation and little more than a revision of previous predictions. No indication as to why previous predictions failed....no indication of what data, other than the failed prediction itself that prompted a 180 degree change in the present prediction....no modification of the physics that prompted the first prediction...

In short, nothing scientific at all...just a changed prediction because the first one didn't work out.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Wow. That really is very, very good posting, SSDD. You really nailed the British Antarctic Survey with that one.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Wow. That really is very, very good posting, SSDD. You really nailed the British Antarctic Survey with that one.

You want the extent of your mischaracterization of the British Antarctic Survey brought out for public consumption? Interesting....but OK.

The British Antarctic Survey is, according to them, a component of the Natural Environment Research Council which according to the Natural Environment Research Council is a "non departmental public body" which receives funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Your so called "world's foremost science academy" is little more than a component of a clearing house for grants and funds...not an academy at all....and certainly not one of the world's foremost academies.

Did you actually bother to look up the British Antarctic Survey before you claimed that they were one of the world's foremost scientific academies, or do you just state the first lie comes to your head if you believe it will help you make a point? Or do you perhaps weigh several lies in your mind and determine by some arcane ritual which lie you think will be more believable?

 

[IanC]

while I understand that predictions for individual's behaviour are lucky guesses at best.....I foresee deflection, change in topic, and continued ad hominems coming from saigon rather than reasoned debate with personalized ideas and insight.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

At this stage we #85 comments into this thread, and I have yet to see a single comment which addresses SCIENCE.

What we do have is pages and pages and pages of SDD saying "I won't read that - because....."

(insert laughable reasons of your choice)

Did you know, for instance, that the British Antarctic Surbey only publishes "opinion pieces"? Or that it is a "clearing house for funds"?

Any comments on science would be very welcome - I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Saigon]

a component of a clearing house for grants and funds.

Enlightening as that is, these seem to be quite complex goals for a "clearing house", wouldn't you say?

Programme Goals

To explain changes in atmospheric circulation, temperatures and sea-ice extent in both polar regions over the past 50 years and to determine how much of this change is due to human activity and how much is a result of natural factors (including solar variability)
To improve the representation of polar climate processes in large-scale models, using targeted observations
To improve climate predictions in the polar regions on the space and timescales needed by the international scientific community (including glaciologists, oceanographers and biologists)
To maintain a programme of high-quality, long-term observations in the Antarctic using instruments at BAS research stations and remote field sites
To understand the controls on energetic particle precipitation in the upper atmosphere, and the ways in which particle precipitation can impact on the middle and lower atmosphere through changes in chemistry and wave propagation

Climate Programme Summary - British Antarctic Survey

So 85 comments in, and you have yet to come up with a single solid, coherent scientific reason why you refuse to consider this research.

It really is a far better example of fundamentalist denial than I could ever have dreamt of proving.

 

[SSDD]

So 85 comments in, and you have yet to come up with a single solid, coherent scientific reason why you refuse to consider this research.

It really is a far better example of fundamentalist denial than I could ever have dreamt of proving.

Contrary to your lies, I have told you exactly why the material is not convincing. The primary reason is that it seems to reverse the consensus opinion of as recently as 2011. It makes no mention at all as to why the original consensus opinion that the antarctic would undergo rapid melting was wrong...it mentions no new data that corrects the previous consensus opinion....it mentions no error whatsoever in the previous consensus opinion...it merely states a new prediction.

Science....especially science that does a 180 degree turnabout from previously held hypotheses first describes what was wrong with the original hypothesis, what measures were taken to verify the error in the first hypothesis, the new hypothesis, what new data have triggered the need for a new hypothesis, and how the new hypothesis meshes with observation.

Your "first class paper" doesn't do any of that. It just makes a new prediction as if the new prediction weren't 180 degrees out from the previous consensus prediction. That, as much as you might wish it were, is not science. It is what might be expected from self published self agrandizement reviewed by the self agrandizers themselves.

 

[Saigon]

I have told you exactly why the material is not convincing.

opinion pieces

a component of a clearing house for grants and funds.

What you have posted is a string of childish, meaningless excuses for not reading the actual research.

 

[westwall]

I have told you exactly why the material is not convincing.

opinion pieces

a component of a clearing house for grants and funds.

What you have posted is a string of childish, meaningless excuses for not reading the actual research.

Thank you saigon, I acknowledge your concession in the discussion. You have indeed presented no reputable studies and had no alternative but to concede defeat. Good for you for realising your arguments were fatally flawed.

 

[Oddball]

while I understand that predictions for individual's behaviour are lucky guesses at best.....I foresee deflection, change in topic, and continued ad hominems coming from saigon rather than reasoned debate with personalized ideas and insight.

Whaddyawant?...He's a socialist...They exempt themselves from the rules, with which they demand everyone else comply.