Con-Climate Science Fudged - But Why?

[IanC]

Ian C -

No one has ever disputed that glaciers melt, and have always melted.

If you wish to deliberaly miss the point, then I'll leave you to do so with Frank and Daveman.

It's you who are being intellectually dishonest here. Ian has presented evidence of worldwide glacier retreat long before CO2 was ever an "issue". How does that HISTORICAL (I know, you guys don't like anything over 30 years old) data affect your interpretation of the AGW "theory".

I hate to bring up things over and over again (unlike Old Rocks) but there are some things that really strike a chord with me. Lonnie Thompson is a member of The Team who has done much of the ice core drilling in the last few decades. his group did an ice core in Alaska at the beginning of the new millenia and found to their dismay that the glacier was only about 2000 years old. other than one initial report to satisfy funding requirements, they have not published any findings and have blocked all efforts to have the data released. this is the sort of thing that really pisses me off. they were given large amounts of money to do a job and expand mankind's store of knowledge. when it didnt give the results that they wanted it just disappeared. who is to say that that data set doesnt hold the key to a new understanding of climate workings if only it was available for other scientists to use?

this is a common occurence. many of the tree ring data sets have been expanded in the last 20 or 30 years but if the new data set shows inconvenient results they just disappear. it is not only infuriating but also anti-science. the scientific method states that you should show all of your results, not just the ones that agree with your hypothesis. if medical researchers tried to get away with the bullshit that climate scientists consider standard practise tha medical researchers would be highly censured if not actually jailed for fraud.

 

[westwall]

Ian C -

No one has ever disputed that glaciers melt, and have always melted.

If you wish to deliberaly miss the point, then I'll leave you to do so with Frank and Daveman.

It's you who are being intellectually dishonest here. Ian has presented evidence of worldwide glacier retreat long before CO2 was ever an "issue". How does that HISTORICAL (I know, you guys don't like anything over 30 years old) data affect your interpretation of the AGW "theory".

I hate to bring up things over and over again (unlike Old Rocks) but there are some things that really strike a chord with me. Lonnie Thompson is a member of The Team who has done much of the ice core drilling in the last few decades. his group did an ice core in Alaska at the beginning of the new millenia and found to their dismay that the glacier was only about 2000 years old. other than one initial report to satisfy funding requirements, they have not published any findings and have blocked all efforts to have the data released. this is the sort of thing that really pisses me off. they were given large amounts of money to do a job and expand mankind's store of knowledge. when it didnt give the results that they wanted it just disappeared. who is to say that that data set doesnt hold the key to a new understanding of climate workings if only it was available for other scientists to use?

this is a common occurence. many of the tree ring data sets have been expanded in the last 20 or 30 years but if the new data set shows inconvenient results they just disappear. it is not only infuriating but also anti-science. the scientific method states that you should show all of your results, not just the ones that agree with your hypothesis. if medical researchers tried to get away with the bullshit that climate scientists consider standard practise tha medical researchers would be highly censured if not actually jailed for fraud.

Indeed. This is an excellent example of fraud. He should be tossed in prison with the rest of them.

 

[IanC]

Ian C-

What possible value can there be in looking at a single glacier? Why on earth would you post such a thing?

Yes, glaciers have always moved. It is what glaciers do.

However, at no point in the past that science is aware of have 97% of the worlds glaciers are declined at the same time.

I'll ignore all of the chiildishness about so-called 'alarmists'.

why on earth would I post such a thing??????

to show that the glaciers have been shrinking since the 1800's! why did you think I posted it?

here is another

most of the retreat was pre-CO2

hahahahahahahahahaha

saigon actually neg rep'ed me for this post. he wants to come across as all 'sciencey' but as is usually the case with warmists, they just lash out when they are frustrated.

too bad. I was hoping for better.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

The only thing I am frustrated by is the unwillingness of people to post honestly.

Cherry-picking one single glacier as an example of what is happening to the worlds tens of thousands of glaciers is simply dishonest. It is also EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking you accuse scientists of doing.

In this case, your post also came directly after I had explained that the issue here is not that one or two glaciers are retreating, as is always the case somewhere in the world - but the fact that the current global decline, in which 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, is entirely without precedent.

At the moment I don't see any point disussing the topic, because there just isn't that basic level of intergrity there to make debate possible.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

The only thing I am frustrated by is the unwillingness of people to post honestly.

Cherry-picking one single glacier as an example of what is happening to the worlds tens of thousands of glaciers is simply dishonest. It is also EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking you accuse scientists of doing.

In this case, your post also came directly after I had explained that the issue here is not that one or two glaciers are retreating, as is always the case somewhere in the world - but the fact that the current global decline, in which 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, is entirely without precedent.

At the moment I don't see any point disussing the topic, because there just isn't that basic level of intergrity there to make debate possible.

I call bullshit. you named the ****Hunt glacier and I looked for a timeline of that glacier but it wasnt easily available. I found one that was nearby and posted it. you then complained it was only one glacier so I found another timeline map of a whole region of glaciers. most of the melting in both Greenland and Alaska was pre-CO2 warming. I post what I can find, there is not a whole of websites and agencies producing information in an easily used form for the sceptical argument.

I reacted to your post! you can hardly accuse me of cherrypicking. why dont you just inundate us with reports of how the last dregs of ice are melting faster than 'ever'?

 

[westwall]

Ian -

The only thing I am frustrated by is the unwillingness of people to post honestly.

Cherry-picking one single glacier as an example of what is happening to the worlds tens of thousands of glaciers is simply dishonest. It is also EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking you accuse scientists of doing.

In this case, your post also came directly after I had explained that the issue here is not that one or two glaciers are retreating, as is always the case somewhere in the world - but the fact that the current global decline, in which 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, is entirely without precedent.

At the moment I don't see any point disussing the topic, because there just isn't that basic level of intergrity there to make debate possible.

Ian's IS an HONEST post...unlike yours. You are full of crap dude. Absolutely full of crap. And you are unethical to boot. I have just pos repped Ian to make up for your douchebaggery.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

The only thing I am frustrated by is the unwillingness of people to post honestly.

Cherry-picking one single glacier as an example of what is happening to the worlds tens of thousands of glaciers is simply dishonest. It is also EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking you accuse scientists of doing.

In this case, your post also came directly after I had explained that the issue here is not that one or two glaciers are retreating, as is always the case somewhere in the world - but the fact that the current global decline, in which 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, is entirely without precedent.

At the moment I don't see any point disussing the topic, because there just isn't that basic level of intergrity there to make debate possible.

Ian's IS an HONEST post...unlike yours. You are full of crap dude. Absolutely full of crap. And you are unethical to boot. I have just pos repped Ian to make up for your douchebaggery.

thanks westy. I wasnt trolling for replacement rep, I really dont give a crap about rep. I just thought it was amazing that that particular post would draw a neg rep. perhaps saigon just considered it a negative 'thanks' button. but it does seem to characterize the alarmists attitude. Old Rocks seems to react in the same way to points that he cant easily refute. I really did have higher hopes for saigon.

 

[westwall]

Ian -

The only thing I am frustrated by is the unwillingness of people to post honestly.

Cherry-picking one single glacier as an example of what is happening to the worlds tens of thousands of glaciers is simply dishonest. It is also EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking you accuse scientists of doing.

In this case, your post also came directly after I had explained that the issue here is not that one or two glaciers are retreating, as is always the case somewhere in the world - but the fact that the current global decline, in which 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, is entirely without precedent.

At the moment I don't see any point disussing the topic, because there just isn't that basic level of intergrity there to make debate possible.

Ian's IS an HONEST post...unlike yours. You are full of crap dude. Absolutely full of crap. And you are unethical to boot. I have just pos repped Ian to make up for your douchebaggery.

thanks westy. I wasnt trolling for replacement rep, I really dont give a crap about rep. I just thought it was amazing that that particular post would draw a neg rep. perhaps saigon just considered it a negative 'thanks' button. but it does seem to characterize the alarmists attitude. Old Rocks seems to react in the same way to points that he cant easily refute. I really did have higher hopes for saigon.

Why? He has engaged in unethical, uneducated, groupthink behavior from the very beginning. He doesn't wish to discuss anything. He merely wants to talk at people and have them agree with him. He doesn't or can't think about anything factual.

 

[Saigon]

you named the ****Hunt glacier

This is simply lying, Ian.

Provide the post number where I did so, or withdraw the statement.

 

[Saigon]

Ian's IS an HONEST post...unlike yours. You are full of crap dude. Absolutely full of crap. And you are unethical to boot. I have just pos repped Ian to make up for your douchebaggery.

Well, actually he has just lied to you twice - and you can prove it by looking at the post above this one.

He might also have been honest to admit that I have also pos repped him recently when his posting has been good.


Ir absolutely staggers me to read through this page and see that not one of you sheep is willing to admit that looking at one single glacier may not be the best or more honest way of gaining insight into what it is happening to glaciers worldwide. What children you are.

 

[IanC]

Ian C-

WRT Arctic sea ice- are you saying that the disappearance of sea ice is predominantly caused by warmer air temperatures rather than weather conditions? (and the starting amount of ice from year to year)

Yes.

Although let's also remember that there may well be a connection between rising temperatures and those weather conditions.

"Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces."

Arctic Sea Ice | NRDC

perhaps you should be asking yourself why it is so important to you that 'Ian is a liar'.

I am just here to discuss things. while I may occasionally get mixed up between posters, or misremember what was said, I certainly dont lie.

 

[IanC]

Ian's IS an HONEST post...unlike yours. You are full of crap dude. Absolutely full of crap. And you are unethical to boot. I have just pos repped Ian to make up for your douchebaggery.

thanks westy. I wasnt trolling for replacement rep, I really dont give a crap about rep. I just thought it was amazing that that particular post would draw a neg rep. perhaps saigon just considered it a negative 'thanks' button. but it does seem to characterize the alarmists attitude. Old Rocks seems to react in the same way to points that he cant easily refute. I really did have higher hopes for saigon.

Why? He has engaged in unethical, uneducated, groupthink behavior from the very beginning. He doesn't wish to discuss anything. He merely wants to talk at people and have them agree with him. He doesn't or can't think about anything factual.

hahahaha, that comment hits too close to home. actually I prefer that people disagree with me, but with inferior arguments. hahahaha

 

[IanC]

Ian's IS an HONEST post...unlike yours. You are full of crap dude. Absolutely full of crap. And you are unethical to boot. I have just pos repped Ian to make up for your douchebaggery.

Well, actually he has just lied to you twice - and you can prove it by looking at the post above this one.

He might also have been honest to admit that I have also pos repped him recently when his posting has been good.


Ir absolutely staggers me to read through this page and see that not one of you sheep is willing to admit that looking at one single glacier may not be the best or more honest way of gaining insight into what it is happening to glaciers worldwide. What children you are.

it absolutely staggers me that the warmists claim that glaciers are melting from CO2 induced warming even though glaciers have been melting for 150 years and the bulk of the melting happened pre-CO2.

instead of bitching at me for finding the timeline map for one Greenland glacier and more than a dozen Alaskan glaciers, why dont you find some examples of glaciers that only started melting after CO2 induced warming?

perhaps you could find a clue in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? hahaha yah, KIlamanjaro that's the ticket. and you call sceptics dishonest. you could heat your house with the size of that log in your eye.

 

[IanC]

06 May 1940 - Greenland's Climate Becoming Milder

scientists were already calling glacier melting a catastrophe back in 1940. warmists dont like historical records written by people who had no interest in today's witch hunt against CO2.

 

[IanC]

DMI has changed their method for masking out coastal areas. I wonder what their end game is?

to this

from Arctic Sea Ice Not As Bad As They Claimed??? DMI « sunshine hours

interesting


edit- dont forget to notice the change in the y axis

 

[Saigon]

you named the ****Hunt glacier

This is simply lying, Ian.

Provide the post number where I did so, or withdraw the statement.

Still no answer, Ian?

 

[IanC]

Ian C-

WRT Arctic sea ice- are you saying that the disappearance of sea ice is predominantly caused by warmer air temperatures rather than weather conditions? (and the starting amount of ice from year to year)

Yes.

Although let's also remember that there may well be a connection between rising temperatures and those weather conditions.

"Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces."

Arctic Sea Ice | NRDC

perhaps you should be asking yourself why it is so important to you that 'Ian is a liar'.

I am just here to discuss things. while I may occasionally get mixed up between posters, or misremember what was said, I certainly dont lie.

Did you miss this or do you not think it is an answer?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Ok, yes, I clearly did refer to it in a C&P - you are quite right and I apologise unreservedly for calling you a liar on that issue. I was wrong.


This still does not mean that I consider that you have been posting within a hundred miles of good faith on this topic the past couple of days, and trying to pretend that a single glacier is a fair and honest way of considering the global events surrounding glaciers is simply beneath the minimum level at which debate can take place.

I throughly enjoy climate change as a topic, and am delighted to talk to people with a wide range of opinions and positions, but meaningful debate does require integrity. It does require that posters use examples which meet their own criteria of objectivity and fact, avoid cherry picking, and in particular stick with a topic even as they start to see inconveniant facts approaching over the horizon. At the moment I just don't see that happening on these threads at all.

 

[IanC]

I try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt but you are starting to get on my nerves by questioning my integrity. why are you allowed to argue your side of the position but I am an evil denier by arguing my side?

and please stop saying I only presented one glacier in rebuttal. I found one glacier in proximity to the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf because that was the only one I could find and then I added a whole complex of glaciers to bolster my position.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

It's still a question of choosing one glacier here and another glacier there, though, isn't it?

That makes no sense to me at all.

I don't care what "side" anyone is on - but surely you can see that choosing 2 or 3 of the world's 130,000 glaciers in cherry picking of a simply breath-taking extent?


btw. My reference to the Ward Ice Shelf was unrelated to the topic of glaciers (which is why I had no recollection of having referred to it) but was concerning temperature change and the arctic.