Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice

[elvis]

Dr. Weinstein has 35 years experience at the NASA Langley Research Center where he was a Senior Research Scientist and is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

His position is not that the earth didn't experience some warming in the last decade, but that the warming was far less than predicted by the likes of the IPCC report and alarmists such as Hansen. Weinstein also maintains that the link between warming, and man-made causes is minimal, and any future climate warming will be far less than more recent alarmist predictions from the global warming crowd is now disseminating. He does propose continued policies to reduce overall human-made pollution - but believes the man-made greenhouse gas/global warming theory to be more propoganda than science.

Weinstein shows that an honest review of even recent earth temperatures shows variations between warmer and colder periods, including periods warmer than present yet before the more substantial rise in human-produced CO2 levels. (Such as the 1930s and 1940s, which were significantly warmer than the 1990's and certainly warmer than the last few years when temperatures have been in decline once again.)

Any attempts to disregard Weinstein's views on the subject is simply another example of those clinging on to their pre-determined global warming belief system. His opinion, like other climate realists in the scientific community, is worthy of serious consideration by anyone actually approaching this subject with an objective, science-based approach...

I guess we can rule Old Roxy out then.

 

[Oddball]

When an article passes peer review in a scientific journal, the methodology, supporting evidence are all checked. When someone posts in a blog, nothing is checked.

Peer reviewed scientific journals are a far better and more reliable source of information than wingnut blogs. Even dumb fucking sargeants should know that!

Riiiiight.....When a blue-ribbon panel of anthropogenic global warming crackpots "review" and approve your crackpottery, then it's kosher!!

 

[Chris]

Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.

 

[Sinatra]

Dr. Weinstein has 35 years experience at the NASA Langley Research Center where he was a Senior Research Scientist and is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

His position is not that the earth didn't experience some warming in the last decade, but that the warming was far less than predicted by the likes of the IPCC report and alarmists such as Hansen. Weinstein also maintains that the link between warming, and man-made causes is minimal, and any future climate warming will be far less than more recent alarmist predictions from the global warming crowd is now disseminating. He does propose continued policies to reduce overall human-made pollution - but believes the man-made greenhouse gas/global warming theory to be more propoganda than science.

Weinstein shows that an honest review of even recent earth temperatures shows variations between warmer and colder periods, including periods warmer than present yet before the more substantial rise in human-produced CO2 levels. (Such as the 1930s and 1940s, which were significantly warmer than the 1990's and certainly warmer than the last few years when temperatures have been in decline once again.)

Any attempts to disregard Weinstein's views on the subject is simply another example of those clinging on to their pre-determined global warming belief system. His opinion, like other climate realists in the scientific community, is worthy of serious consideration by anyone actually approaching this subject with an objective, science-based approach...[/QUOTE]

It appears some need to review that final line.

There are so many within the scientific community disputing the global warming mantra, and yet the few GW faithful in here simply choose to ignore that simple fact.

Keep an open mind folks! Approach a subject like this with a willingness to look at the varied possibilities, motivations, and ultimate conclusions. Otherwise, you are simply shuffling about like zombies, devoid of intellect, and simply repeating a pre-installed message...

 

[elvis]

Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.

It wasn't rush that he quoted, dipshit.

 

[Oddball]

Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.

Strawman alert!!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Ya cause you have such standing as to be taken seriously. Isn't it amazing how ONLY the people the left decides are credible matter?

No, only research published in peer reviewed scientific literature is credible.

 

[Oddball]

Who are the "peers"...The IPCC that only accepts about 7% of the scientific papers it solicits??

Or maybe those "peers" are the authors of those 7% of papers??

Did you know that holocaust deniers utilize exactly the same kind of "peer review"??

 

[Chris]

Funny how Rush's listeners know more about climate than every scientific society in every country on the planet.

Strawman alert!!

Hardly.

Every scientific society in every country on the planet disagrees with you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One more time for the terminally insane and wretchedly IGNORANT. The chart is there, PROVE it wrong.

 

[Chris]

It's an oft-repeated statistic that the glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park will disappear by the year 2030.

But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park's namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region's plants and animals.

The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model," Fagre said. "What we've been saying now is 2020."

The 2020 estimate is based on aerial surveys and photography Fagre and his team have been conducting at Glacier since the early 1980s. A more standardized measure of what's happening to a glacier comes from arduous documentation of its mass, which requires—among other techniques—multiple core samples.

Fagre said the 2020 estimate could be slightly revised after his team conducts the mass measurements—hopefully this year—and their computer models are retooled with current temperatures.

Nonpolar ice is disappearing all over the globe, Fagre said. Major glaciers have entirely disappeared from the Andes, and the Himalaya have lost a third of their snow.

No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

PROVE the graph provided is wrong you dumb shit. Or explain how a region you claim will lose its ice did not lose it in the 20-40 time period when the temperature was higher and for a longer period of time.

 

[Oddball]

Hardly.

Every scientific society in every country on the planet disagrees with you.

Now you're just flat-out lying.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

 

[Sinatra]

PROVE the graph provided is wrong you dumb shit. Or explain how a region you claim will lose its ice did not lose it in the 20-40 time period when the temperature was higher and for a longer period of time.

I understand your anger! It is frustrating when a GW supporter is presented with factual evidence and they revert back to estimated studies as a means of arguement.

The temperature graphs are not fact - they are irrefutable truth that the arctic was warmer in the recent past as well as the more distant past. That the earth's temperatures are very much cyclical, the causes of which are extremely complicated and near-impossible to predict.

And yet, people like Chris persist in ignorant comments of absolutes that are based upon conjecture and not fact.

Kinda sad the discussion has to be like that...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who are the "peers"...The IPCC that only accepts about 7% of the scientific papers it solicits??

Or the hundreds of other relevant scientific journals

Or maybe those "peers" are the authors of those 7% of papers??

Yes, scientific journals often have as referees people who have previously been published in such a journal. That's what makes them "peers"

Did you know that holocaust deniers utilize exactly the same kind of "peer review"??

No they don't.

 

[Oddball]

Or the hundreds of other relevant scientific journals.

The unspoken "....who also glean their "evidence" from the same minority of scientists".

Yes, scientific journals often have as referees people who have previously been published in such a journal. That's what makes them "peers"

No they don't.

Yes they do....By exactly the networking model you described.

Global warming scaremongers, just like holocaust deniers, routinely quote one another's "research" as "proof" they're correct, to the exclusion of all evidence that contravenes it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One more time for the terminally insane and wretchedly IGNORANT. The chart is there, PROVE it wrong.

How can I prove it wrong when I don't even know where it came from?

"The following is a temperature record over the last 11,000 years made from a typical ice core from the peak of the Greenland ice cap."

Which ice core? Taken by whom and published where? The author doesn't reveal this. For all we know he completely made it up. His email wouldn't even pass a first round of peer review.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Or the hundreds of other relevant scientific journals.

The unspoken "....who also glean their "evidence" from the same minority of scientists".

What minority? Only the IPCC and other special groups have such low publication rates per submission. The vast majority of journals aren't as selective as their purpose isn't as selective. I'm not getting your point.

The fact that you'd even suggest the vast majority of scientists can't get their work published is absurd at face value. If you don't get your work published, you will quickly not have a job.

Yes they do....By exactly the networking model you described.

No, its by the networking model you described.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

PROVE the graph provided is wrong you dumb shit. Or explain how a region you claim will lose its ice did not lose it in the 20-40 time period when the temperature was higher and for a longer period of time.

I understand your anger! It is frustrating when a GW supporter is presented with factual evidence and they revert back to estimated studies as a means of arguement.

The temperature graphs are not fact - they are irrefutable truth that the arctic was warmer in the recent past as well as the more distant past. That the earth's temperatures are very much cyclical, the causes of which are extremely complicated and near-impossible to predict.

And yet, people like Chris persist in ignorant comments of absolutes that are based upon conjecture and not fact.

Kinda sad the discussion has to be like that...

How do we know the evidence is "factual" when the author doesn't even tell us where it came from?

 

[Oddball]

The fact that you'd even suggest the vast majority of scientists can't get their work published is absurd at face value. If you don't get your work published, you will quickly not have a job.

Uh-huh.....And if your research contravenes what the "peers" doing the reviewing have convinced themselves of what the facts are, what are you chances of getting published??

Somewhere between slim and none is my bet.