Map Makers Show Greenland Sections As Ice Free To Please AGW Advocates

[gslack]

The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images


JammieWearingFool: Atlasgate: 'A Killer Mistake That Cannot Be Winked Away'

So let me see if I can characterize the range and breadth of the conspiracy you are telling us exists.

The majority of climatologists, and literally hundreds of thousands of scientists in other fields whose research also is used to support the theory of Global warming, AND NOW some of the worlds leading CARTOLOGISTS are also in on this vast Global Warming lie?

Is that what you really believe?

That literally scores of thousands of climatologists and wealther scscientists and now cartologists, too, PLUS all the auxillary researchers whose work ALSO contributes to this theory are all in on a gigantic conspiracy to convince us that the world's climate is getting warmer?

And they are doing this, some of you claim, merely to get GRANTS to FAKE research?!

And some of you believe this?

Seriously?

Wow!

I have to hand it to you folks.

Your faith based beliefs in this conspiracy theory are truly a marvel to behold.

I don't suppose that it is possible that any of you have considered the possibility that the majority of climatologists and so forth are just honestly wrong, have you?

I mean we all know that periodically the majority of scientists ARE wrong, right?

But THAT possiblity doesn't appeal to ya'll, does it?

So instead you weave a completely implausible conspiracy theory, one involving hundreds of thousands of people, because why?

Because that conspriacy theory suits your political point of view.

Man, that's a breath-takingly insane belief system, folks.

YOur VAST CABAL OF GLOBAL-WARMING SCIENCTISTS THEORY is nuttier than pretty much any other conspiracy theory I can think of.

Understand, I say this to you and I am more than willing to consider the possibility that the whole global weirding event could be entirely nonsense and acknowledging that the world of science could be, as it sometimes has been before, TOTALLY WRONG.

But a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators?

Man, that is TRULY nuts.

And we see trollingblunders alter ego continuing the same ignorance... Do you really expect us to believe they are separate people now? Really??

Get a grip blundereditecthunderkonradsocks. or whoever you are this time (like it matters)... The very scientists whose job it is to monitor greenlands ice where the ones who called the atlas out... Get it? What you think changing your identity will make your argument better?

 

[IanC]

The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images


JammieWearingFool: Atlasgate: 'A Killer Mistake That Cannot Be Winked Away'

So let me see if I can characterize the range and breadth of the conspiracy you are telling us exists.

The majority of climatologists, and literally hundreds of thousands of scientists in other fields whose research also is used to support the theory of Global warming, AND NOW some of the worlds leading CARTOLOGISTS are also in on this vast Global Warming lie?

Is that what you really believe?

That literally scores of thousands of climatologists and wealther scscientists and now cartologists, too, PLUS all the auxillary researchers whose work ALSO contributes to this theory are all in on a gigantic conspiracy to convince us that the world's climate is getting warmer?

And they are doing this, some of you claim, merely to get GRANTS to FAKE research?!

And some of you believe this?

Seriously?

Wow!

I have to hand it to you folks.

Your faith based beliefs in this conspiracy theory are truly a marvel to behold.

I don't suppose that it is possible that any of you have considered the possibility that the majority of climatologists and so forth are just honestly wrong, have you?

I mean we all know that periodically the majority of scientists ARE wrong, right?

But THAT possiblity doesn't appeal to ya'll, does it?

So instead you weave a completely implausible conspiracy theory, one involving hundreds of thousands of people, because why?

Because that conspriacy theory suits your political point of view.

Man, that's a breath-takingly insane belief system, folks.

YOur VAST CABAL OF GLOBAL-WARMING SCIENCTISTS THEORY is nuttier than pretty much any other conspiracy theory I can think of.

Understand, I say this to you and I am more than willing to consider the possibility that the whole global weirding event could be entirely nonsense and acknowledging that the world of science could be, as it sometimes has been before, TOTALLY WRONG.

But a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators?

Man, that is TRULY nuts.

its not a conspiracy in the usual sense. it is a bias towards accepting any evidence that appears to support CAGW even if it is obviously wrong and attacking any evidence against CAGW even when it is NOT obviously wrong. Himalayagate, Amazongate were defended before it became obvious that they were wrong and based on faulty grey literature. standards for peer review are different depending on which side is trying to get published. appeal to authority and 'consensus' are used as a hammer all out of proportion to the science behind it. Atlasgate was only resolved quickly because they didnt want yet another scandal to sully the reputaion of climate science. there are dozens (at least) of other subjects that would be embarassing if there was some way to get them into the public eye. I cant believe the Hockey Stick fiasco is still not resolved after a whole decade. we missed an early opportunity to clean up climate science.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Ian, Ian. A conspiracy by any other name would smell the same.

 

[gslack]

LOL. Ian, Ian. A conspiracy by any other name would smell the same.

look oldtrollingblundereditedkonradsocks, your scientists went after the atlas publication. Thats all there is to it. A year or more ago this sort of thing would have been overlooked but now we have the AGW crowd even trying to distance themselves from the messiah gore, ocean acidification theory being recanted, and even last years most dedicated algorians are becoming more and more moderate on this by the day. Amazing what a few so-called meaningless emails can do...

People see the emperor has no clothes, and refuse to play dumb anymore..

 

[bripat9643]

Hey Pattycake, there are only 98 or so publishing Phd Climotologists. And 95 of them state AGW is real and a danger to our civilization. But in your book that is not a consensus. And the 2 or 3 that state otherwise are a majority. OK, we understand "Conservative" math.

How many of those "climatologists" are sucking on the government tit? Answer: all of them.

Anyone who thinks "consensus" determines scientific facts is an obvious scientific ignoramus. They are also frauds who are trying to put one over on you.

If you took a poll of economists in the former Soviet Union of whether socialism is a workable economics system, you would get a unanimous consensus, but it would be 100% wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good God. Dumbass Pattycake seems to think that only US climatologists, geologists, and other scientists are stating that AGW is real and a threat. Buddy boy, it is the National Academies of Science of every nation that has such in the whole world that are stating this. As well as all the Scientific Societies in the world. As well as all the major universities.

You little tin hat conspiracy freaks are a hoot.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Ian, Ian. A conspiracy by any other name would smell the same.

look oldtrollingblundereditedkonradsocks, your scientists went after the atlas publication. Thats all there is to it. A year or more ago this sort of thing would have been overlooked but now we have the AGW crowd even trying to distance themselves from the messiah gore, ocean acidification theory being recanted, and even last years most dedicated algorians are becoming more and more moderate on this by the day. Amazing what a few so-called meaningless emails can do...

People see the emperor has no clothes, and refuse to play dumb anymore..

Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification

 

[ScienceRocks]

[/QUOTE]

Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification[/QUOTE]

Oh, hell they surely don't care. I'm thinking that they all agree with the skookerbil That is the reality of it. They don't care that it was the maker of the map that screwed up; not the scientist, which are the people that watch the greenland ice sheets and are the ones pointing out the error. I wish there was some honesty instead of constant attempts to score a hit on people.

But for us people that enjoy looking at our planet and what it does here.

 

[wirebender]

I do not think you'[re right about that, WB.

When the world's leading scientific peer review journals come down on one side of the issue, they do so based on scientific CONSENSUS.

Now I freely admit that it is possible that the scientific consensus could be WRONG.

But I cannot buy into any theory that a 4 decade old conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and the auxillary support staffs, too, are all in a GRAND LIE.

To believe that is to completely ignore what we ALL KNOW aobut conspiracies.

Really? The battle over the safety of genetically and bioengineered crops been going on for about 40 years has it not? The "consensus" among researchers is that such crops are safe for humans, and the environment and that no harm will come from widespread use of them. The very people who shout CONSENSUS and demand that something be done about AGW are screaming at the top of their lungs (during their spare time) that the consensus on the safety of biotech crops is a fraud and conspiracy perpetuated by scientists who have been corrupted by research money.

Thinking back, I can think of a few times when the broad scientific consensus has proven to be quite wrong and in many of those instances, the consensus can be traced back to little more than research money and the time frames aren't so different from the time frame the global warming debate has been going on.

In the very early 1980's the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens listed, as the result of quite a bit of pretty expensive research that the artificial sweetener saccharin caused cancer. The broad scientific consensus was that those little white pills would cause cancer. Then in 2000, the national cancer institute issed findings that there existed no clear or convincing evidence that saccharin caused cancer so it was removed from the probable carcinogen list.

In the 1960's the broad scientific consensus was that the root cause of cancer could, very probably, be traced back to a virus or retrovirus. Then in the late 70's, the broad consensus decided that it probagly wasn't a virus, but our diet that most likely caused cancer. That broad consensus was based on some expensive research that concluded that the intake of dietary fiber could signifigantly reduce the incidence of colon cancer. Twenty years later, a broad study of nearly 100,000 individuals found that intake of dietary cancer had no relation to colorectal cancer. Just a few years ago in 2005, another large study found that intake of dietary fiber had no statistical relationship to colorectal cancer.

Now the broad consensus is that intake of dietary fiber is associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease.

In the middle 1980's a huge report issued by the White House science office confirming the scientific consensus that agents that caused cancer in animals should be suspected as cancer causing agents in humans and that giving animals high doses of these agents was the proper and correct way to determine the cancer risk of these agents in humans. Such studies remain the standard for regulation but the reliability of that sort of testing is questioned by the "consensus" today.

In the late 70's the broad consensus among scientists was that the "break even" point for fusion reactors, that is the point at which they produce more energy than they consume was around 5 years and as a result, government was going to radically increase the amount of research money into further study and projects. Here we are almost to 2011 and no fusion reactor has even come close to breaking even in 5 years.

The broad scientific consensus that a human life exists from the time it is concieved has existed since the 1800's and that abortion kills a human being. So much for consensus.

Consider how long the broad scientific consensus agreed with, and perpetuated the food pyramid. Seems that they were quite wrong. It has been changed but even the revision is under question.

Eugenics anyone?

Go back further and you find a clear and undeniable conspiracy to silence skeptics who didn't buy the consensus that the universe revolved around the earth.

How long did the broad consensus beleive that life could spontaneously generate from lifeless matter?

How many times has the broad consensus on the age of the universe changed and how confident are you in the present 13.7 billion years figure? Would you bet your life savings on it?

Up until the early years of the 20th century, a broad, and very strong scientific consensus existed that stated flatly that the milky way was, in fact, the entire universe. The work of renouned astronomers such as Vesto Slipher, Harlow Shapley and Adrian van Maanen confirmed it. There was no question.....till there was when in the 1920's a brilliant young astronomer named Hubble came along.

Here are some famous last words:

The verdict of paleontologists is practically unanimous: almost all agree in opposing [Alfred Wegener's hypothesis that the continents used to be one land mass and have since drifted apart]… The fact that almost all paleontologists say that the paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point … It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence.²

George Gaylord Simpson [of Neo-Darwinist fame], ³Mammals and the Nature of Continents, ²American Journal of Science 241 (1943): 1-31, p. 2.

In the middle 1980's the broad scientific consensus was that acid rain resulting from coal fired power plants was destroying lakes, ponds, and broad areas of forest. A hunge bucketfull of taxpayer money and a very large amount of research found that acid rain was not, in fact killing forests, damaging crops, and was causing no measurable health problems. The same group screaming about bioengineered crops is still demanding that something be done about acid rain in whatever time they have left between calling bioengineering a conspiracy founded on funding money and denying that AGW pseudoscience is a conspiracy founded on funding money.

And just within the past few days, the long standing, broad scientific consensus that the speed of light is absolutely as fast as anything can go seems to be under serious question due to the lowly nutrino.

There are many more examples of the broad scientific consensus being dead wrong but I don't have time this moring to go into them. One thing you can gather from considering the past instances of broad scientific consensus is that effectively limits the number and kinds of questions regarding whatever branch of reserch it is related to that should be being asked by responsible scientists to whom gaining knowledge and understanding is their main priority.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Well, so there is, after all, a consensus of scientists that AGW is correct. Thank You, Bent. You have confirmed the truth of this consensus with your post.

Now, what is the basis of the consensus that AGW is correct? It is the absorption band of IR of the various GHGs. Has anyone disproved the existance of those bands since Tyndall first observed them in 1858? If so, present proof.

Where there was a consensus that the hypothesis presented was correct, I would note that it was real scientists that pointed out the flaws. As with the Greenland Maps.

The sad part of this whole debate is that one side is presenting the work of real scientists from all over the world, while the other is presenting frauds like Monkton and Watts. And, in spite of their yearly predictions of cooling, the temperatures just keep going up. Like this year, when, with a double La Nina, we should be seeing some really cold temperatures, like the 1920's, when the Columbia froze over a couple of times at Portland, Oregon.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification[/QUOTE]

Oh, hell they surely don't care. I'm thinking that they all agree with the skookerbil That is the reality of it. They don't care that it was the maker of the map that screwed up; not the scientist, which are the people that watch the greenland ice sheets and are the ones pointing out the error. I wish there was some honesty instead of constant attempts to score a hit on people.

But for us people that enjoy looking at our planet and what it does here.

[/QUOTE]

But ol' Kooky has one thing going for him. He frames it as purely political, and doesn't even bother to lie about the science.

 

[wirebender]

LOL Well, so there is, after all, a consensus of scientists that AGW is correct. Thank You, Bent. You have confirmed the truth of this consensus with your post.

You are pathetic rocks. Does that sort of twisting of someone's words give you a sense of victory? How sad for you if it does.

Now, what is the basis of the consensus that AGW is correct? It is the absorption band of IR of the various GHGs. Has anyone disproved the existance of those bands since Tyndall first observed them in 1858? If so, present proof.

The emission lines are the proof that CO2 does not retain any heat rocks. If you weren't so damned ignorant, you would know that the emission spectra is precisely the opposite of the absorption spectra indicating that everything that goes in, leaves at, or near the speed of light.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, that is correct. The absorped IR is re-radiated, but about 1/2 of that is now radiated back to the earth. That 1/2 would have otherwise been radiated out into space and lost. So we have an increase in the heat budget of the earth. Which is exactly what the data shows.

Sorry, Bent, ol' fraud, I find that the research of thousands of real physicists far more convincing than the politically driven meanderings of an internet poster.

 

[wirebender]

Well now, that is correct. The absorped IR is re-radiated, but about 1/2 of that is now radiated back to the earth. That 1/2 would have otherwise been radiated out into space and lost. So we have an increase in the heat budget of the earth. Which is exactly what the data shows.

Sorry, Bent, ol' fraud, I find that the research of thousands of real physicists far more convincing than the politically driven meanderings of an internet poster.

Which vectors of the earth's EM field allow energy transfer in two directions? Which vectors in an EM field don't require subtraction when met with EM fields in opposing vectors in order to determine the direction of energy flow?

It will always come back to basic science rocks and that is where climate pseudoscience simply falls apart. The whole scam is built upon faulty science.

 

[gslack]

Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification

Oh, hell they surely don't care. I'm thinking that they all agree with the skookerbil That is the reality of it. They don't care that it was the maker of the map that screwed up; not the scientist, which are the people that watch the greenland ice sheets and are the ones pointing out the error. I wish there was some honesty instead of constant attempts to score a hit on people.

But for us people that enjoy looking at our planet and what it does here.

But ol' Kooky has one thing going for him. He frames it as purely political, and doesn't even bother to lie about the science.

Douchebag, current studies have shown that there is a saturation limit in the oceans. That means as the oceans increase their CO2, the absorption rates of the oceans drop. Meaning that the more CO2 in the air will only be absorbed so much and so fast by the oceans and that is way before they become acidic.

AS I recall that was from one of yours or your alter-egos threads here... SO were your scientists wrong then or wrong now? The contention of those scientists was that oceans will eventually stop absorbing CO2 leaving it in the atmosphere making it even worse for the warming climate.

You doomsayers can't even remember all of your own fear mongering..

 

[Old Rocks]

Care to post the studies? Or would you rather we just chalk it up to more flap-yap lies.

 

[gslack]

Care to post the studies? Or would you rather we just chalk it up to more flap-yap lies.

LOL don't have to douchebag, what part of it being a thread in this forum and one of yours or your pals did you not get?

You tools, one of you anyway posted the thread here. You want to look it up be my guest. The point of it was simply that they (scientists) have discovered the oceans reach a saturation point of CO2 and their uptake ability slows and reduces to the point they stop absorbing CO2. And that point is before they can bleach all the coral reefs and kill all the fish...

Don't agree with it? Well then you shouldn't have argued for it in that thread tool...

 

[bripat9643]

Good God. Dumbass Pattycake seems to think that only US climatologists, geologists, and other scientists are stating that AGW is real and a threat. Buddy boy, it is the National Academies of Science of every nation that has such in the whole world that are stating this. As well as all the Scientific Societies in the world. As well as all the major universities.

You little tin hat conspiracy freaks are a hoot.

They're all sucking on the government tit, nimrod. Government has coopted science and corrupted it. Global warming is a classic example of Lysenko-ism.

 

[bripat9643]

Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification

Oh, hell they surely don't care. I'm thinking that they all agree with the skookerbil That is the reality of it. They don't care that it was the maker of the map that screwed up; not the scientist, which are the people that watch the greenland ice sheets and are the ones pointing out the error. I wish there was some honesty instead of constant attempts to score a hit on people.

But for us people that enjoy looking at our planet and what it does here.

But ol' Kooky has one thing going for him. He frames it as purely political, and doesn't even bother to lie about the science.

Douchebag, current studies have shown that there is a saturation limit in the oceans. That means as the oceans increase their CO2, the absorption rates of the oceans drop. Meaning that the more CO2 in the air will only be absorbed so much and so fast by the oceans and that is way before they become acidic.

AS I recall that was from one of yours or your alter-egos threads here... SO were your scientists wrong then or wrong now? The contention of those scientists was that oceans will eventually stop absorbing CO2 leaving it in the atmosphere making it even worse for the warming climate.

You doomsayers can't even remember all of your own fear mongering..

When the oceans start fizzing like soda pop, then you'll know we've reached the saturation point. That should be when the concentration is about a million times greater than it currently is.

 

[gslack]

Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification

But ol' Kooky has one thing going for him. He frames it as purely political, and doesn't even bother to lie about the science.

Douchebag, current studies have shown that there is a saturation limit in the oceans. That means as the oceans increase their CO2, the absorption rates of the oceans drop. Meaning that the more CO2 in the air will only be absorbed so much and so fast by the oceans and that is way before they become acidic.

AS I recall that was from one of yours or your alter-egos threads here... SO were your scientists wrong then or wrong now? The contention of those scientists was that oceans will eventually stop absorbing CO2 leaving it in the atmosphere making it even worse for the warming climate.

You doomsayers can't even remember all of your own fear mongering..

When the oceans start fizzing like soda pop, then you'll know we've reached the saturation point. That should be when the concentration is about a million times greater than it currently is.

Yeah I just wonder what genius finally decided to check and see if the oceans can hold enough CO2 to back their ocean acidification nonsense.. Seems pretty damn ignorant of a blunder for so-called scientists. Years of "CO2 will make the oceans acidic" only to find they have a limit and that limit is a natural safety measure to prevent that very thing.

Life is tough. And for an eco-system to develop for eons it has to get strong. These algorians seem to think that we can snuff out all of it with an extra amount of a naturally occurring trace gas. Gimme a break. Life started in much worse conditions than we can even imagine and it thrived enough to evolve into what we have today.

So they have to pardon me if I don't climb on the cross right away and write planet killer on my forehead...