It's all just crap...

[saveliberty]

Save Liberty -

If you are wrong, and you can see that you are wrong - why are you still arguing?

I have presented 3 major academic studies - all of which tell you that the amount of ice is diminishing rapidly.

Unless you can fault the methodology or results of this studies based on science, posting numbers you read on ihatealgore.com is not going to convince anyone - least of all yourself, I would have thought.

Your studies are funded by government sources that want the benefits of power derived from this lie. I have not used the source you mentioned even once. I do general web searches when idiots like you post garbage. Surprise, the answers are right there big as life. You support lairs and politicans. I support real science and problems we need to solve now. The ice caps are growing. I have shown that several times. You choose to ignore it because your little world would fall. Do your own research. You should find that 72% of the worlds ice is stable or growing.

Once again, posting yap-yap without any support at all.

#1. You are a liar.

#2. You are a fool.

#3. All of the above.

A liar?

1. Your studies are funded by government sources. True statement.
2. I have not used the source you mentioned even once. True statement.
3. The ice caps are growing. True statement.
4. I have shown that several times. True statement.
5. You should find that 72% of the worlds ice is stable or growing. True statement.

The rest is opinion. A fool would believe falsified information. That would be you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

One can get the same information from the ESA satellites, or Russian and Chinese satellites.

72% of the world's ice gaining mass? Flat out lie, and a stupid one at that.

 

[saveliberty]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

One can get the same information from the ESA satellites, or Russian and Chinese satellites.

72% of the world's ice gaining mass? Flat out lie, and a stupid one at that.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water.

Old Rocks, 80% of Antarctia is stable or growing. .80 x .90= .72

 

[OregonStream]

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

I think we've discussed how things are expected to remain relatively stable "over most of Antarctica", with some moisture-related accumulation, but does that mean there haven't been net losses of mass as measured by satellite? And I'd like to know what's meant by "ice cap percentage". Sea ice area can fluctuate a fair amount, especially inter-annually. Trends in volume or mass seem more important. Where's the scientific study suggesting those are stable or rising globally?

 

[Sodafin]

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water.

Old Rocks, 80% of Antarctia is stable or growing. .80 x .90= .72

Oh come on man - I have just posted 3 scientific articles PROVING that this is not so, and explaining why.

You simply ignored them.

No one has ever denied that the Eastn Antarctic occasionally grows - it occasionally also loses ice.

At least try and step up to the plate and debate sensibly - you'll convince no one with this garbage.

And again for a 4th source:

Researchers used satellites to plot changes in the Earth's gravity in the Antarctic during the period 2002-2005.

Writing in the journal Science, they conclude that the continent is losing 152 cubic km of ice each year, with most loss in the west.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4767296.stm

Let me guess - you'll ignore this because it involved a university!!!

 

[Sodafin]

3. The ice caps are growing. True statement.
4. I have shown that several times. True statement.
5. You should find that 72% of the worlds ice is stable or growing. True statement.

.

Hilarious stuff- honestly, you couldn't make this up, could you??

3. Nonsense. You've ignored 3 scientific surveys establishing this is false.
4. You've presented an article from a newspaper no one has disputed.
5. A laughable statement no one could possibly believe - it is an undisputed scientific fact that 99% of the world glaciers are in retreat, and we know that Greenland and polar ice is in rapid retreat, that the western Antarctic is losing ice, so is it really likely 72% of the worlds ice is growing?

1. So what?

Ten different universities do research -all prove you are wrong - so you ignore them all?

 

[saveliberty]

You will not convince me with false statements Sodafin. You'll just have to except that at this time, no evidence exists that proves without doubt warming is a problem. Further, you have absolutely no evidence to support man is the cause of this supposed problem. Supporting liars and cheats certainly gives me the high ground. Have a great day. This isn't personal, just a difference of opinion.

 

[Sodafin]

Save -

Two questions:

Firstly, why do you think CONSERVATIVE governments would fund reports that would exaggerate the problem of climate change?

Secondly, given that there is total scientific consensus that 99% of the worlds glaciers are in decline - how is that NOT proof of both climate change and net loss of ice?

And yes, I can present total and uncontestable proof of the latter.

btw. This was wonderful!!:

Supporting liars and cheats certainly gives me the high ground

 

[Old Rocks]

You will not convince me with false statements Sodafin. You'll just have to except that at this time, no evidence exists that proves without doubt warming is a problem. Further, you have absolutely no evidence to support man is the cause of this supposed problem. Supporting liars and cheats certainly gives me the high ground. Have a great day. This isn't personal, just a difference of opinion.

Since you prefer nonsense from a junkie radio jock to the reality presented by the world's foremost scientists, obviously nothing is going to convince you to look at reality.

 

[saveliberty]

You will not convince me with false statements Sodafin. You'll just have to except that at this time, no evidence exists that proves without doubt warming is a problem. Further, you have absolutely no evidence to support man is the cause of this supposed problem. Supporting liars and cheats certainly gives me the high ground. Have a great day. This isn't personal, just a difference of opinion.

Since you prefer nonsense from a junkie radio jock to the reality presented by the world's foremost scientists, obviously nothing is going to convince you to look at reality.

Foremost liar you mean. Then there's you who fails to look at the mounting evidence against the big con game. Here's some of the lastest:

In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.

Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist

 

[Old Rocks]

Very good. Dr. Mann is a credible scientist that has done much research.

 

[saveliberty]

Very good. Dr. Mann is a credible scientist that has done much research.

He's a crackpot under investigation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Investigation by whom for what?

And we know that there have been 14 studies of Mann's hockey stick graph, including one by the National Academy of Sciences. All have concluded that the graph is essentially correct, even those studies that critized his methods.

You know what the result of the investigations are going to be? Nothing.

A bunch of politically driven dingbats trying to de-legitimize real science. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

 

[saveliberty]

Investigation by whom for what?

And we know that there have been 14 studies of Mann's hockey stick graph, including one by the National Academy of Sciences. All have concluded that the graph is essentially correct, even those studies that critized his methods.

You know what the result of the investigations are going to be? Nothing.

A bunch of politically driven dingbats trying to de-legitimize real science. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

The current reasoning is, it is okay to have fake data, as long as it is proper results:

American Thinker: "Fake But Accurate" Science?

European investigators last week confirmed that a pioneering oral cancer researcher in Norway had fabricated much of his work. The news left experts in his field with a pressing question: What should they believe now? Suppose his findings, which precisely identified people at high risk of the deadly disease, were accurate even though data were faked?

AAAS's fake—but—accurate standard of scientific rigor applies not merely to the science of such obscure and unimportant subjects as death, disease, and cancer, but extends even to the science of impending doom.

The Hockey Stick Graph

The so—called "hockey stick" graph appears in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization that dominates climate change discussion. The graph purported to show that world temperatures had remained stable for almost a thousand years, but took a sudden turn upward in the last century (the blade of the hockey stick). It was the product of research into "proxy" temperature records, such as tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, by Michael Mann, the Joe Wilson of climate change. It can be seen here. Charles Martin took a critical look at it last March for The American Thinker.

The problem is that the world was almost certainly warmer than it is today during the "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Climate Optimum" of the 9th through 14th Centuries, which was followed by the "Little Ice Age" of the 15th through 19th Centuries, whose end is the occasion for today's global warming hysteria.

But Science magazine stuck to its argument. "Politicians Attack, But Evidence for Global Warming Doesn't Wilt" in the July 28 issue of Science not only employs the typical deceitful rhetoric of the scientific establishment, here presenting an argument among scientists as an argument between scientists and politicians, but also uses the fake—but—accurate excuse for the corrupt activities of its favorite scientists.

Mann's statistical methodology was soon exposed as flawed, if not downright fraudulent, by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and he responded by refusing to make public the details of his analysis. This in turn angered Joe Barton and other members of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who objected to this arrogant refusal to allow oversight of federally financed research—either by the responsible congressional committees or by the scientific community.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hockey stick graph confirmed, November, 2009 issue of the Scientific American.

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see “Behind the Hockey Stick,” by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].