Ice Caps Melting at HALF the predicted Rate.

[westwall]

Well there they go again! Yet another slap in the face of the alarmists. A 50% miss rate is pretty sad.

Ice caps melting at half the speed that had been predicted | Mail Online

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL......yo West........I saw this today and laughed my balls off. I was going to post it but as usual, ya beat me too it. No matter............it was funny as hell to come in here and see this.

Interested to see the fuckking k00ks response to this!!! Fcuking jarheads...........I need some extra cash about now.......should offer them a bog old bag of dog doo packaged with some Gore quote. Maybe they'll send me $1,000 a pop for each bag!!!

Anyway......more total BS from the biggest haox ever perpetuated on mankind!!!

 

[konradv]

But they ARE melting, right? We know these are estimates, so the fact that some differ isn't unusual. Of course, you probably cherry-picked the estimate with the greatest error. Do you consider THAT to be good science? Seems you're doing the same thing you accuse the "Climategate" scientists of doing.

 

[IanC]

But they ARE melting, right? We know these are estimates, so the fact that some differ isn't unusual. Of course, you probably cherry-picked the estimate with the greatest error. Do you consider THAT to be good science? Seems you're doing the same thing you accuse the "Climategate" scientists of doing.

you're getting desparate now. the skeptical side usually just points out the errors of the AGW side. and boooooy are they ever busy.

 

[Dr Grump]

Um, guys, they're still melting. So there is no win, just an adjustment in prediction.

It's like saying there is only a five foot hole in the boat instead of a 15 foot hole. The boat still sinks, but just takes a little longer.

I'm surprised you could stop laughing sKOOKs ....didn't know it was possible to laugh with one's foot planted firmly in one's mouth 24/7....

 

[rdean]

I liked this part here:

Scientists measured the change in the ice caps by analysing changes in Earth’s gravitational field using two satellites, which monitor the distribution of mass on Earth including ice and water.

I love it when right wingers laugh at "scientists" and "science". See? It's "scientists" who are doing the measuring. The odds are it's either a "liberal" or a "Democrat".

 

[jillian]

Um, guys, they're still melting. So there is no win, just an adjustment in prediction.

It's like saying there is only a five foot hole in the boat instead of a 15 foot hole. The boat still sinks, but just takes a little longer.

I'm surprised you could stop laughing sKOOKs ....didn't know it was possible to laugh with one's foot planted firmly in one's mouth 24/7....

yeah, but they somehow feel like they know something if science needs adjustment.

i've just never figured out why the vested interest in science being wrong. there's something pathologic about it.

 

[Steerpike]

This is one of those debates where neither side is honest and science gets lost in Politics.

There's little question that the pro-AGW side has over-sold its case, and I think science has suffered due to political pressure exerted on the issue. AGW became such dogma for a while there that you couldn't even discuss any science that didn't support it. I think that time is starting to fall behind us.

On the anti-AGW side, you have people who won't even consider the possibility of a human contribution to the warming, or the evidence supporting it, also for political reasons. And so any mistake in the science is pounced on. Of course, the pro-AGW side made this possible by over-selling the case and claiming a certainty that we don't have and can't have.

The truth is, we don't know for certain whether and to what extent humans are affecting the climate. It stands to reason that we are, at least to some degree, but it is a complicated issue and I don't think we even understand all the variables (or even what all the variables are).

But we'll continue to hear "certainty" from either side of the AGW debate, and its nonsense coming from both directions.

 

[westwall]

But they ARE melting, right? We know these are estimates, so the fact that some differ isn't unusual. Of course, you probably cherry-picked the estimate with the greatest error. Do you consider THAT to be good science? Seems you're doing the same thing you accuse the "Climategate" scientists of doing.

Yeah, they are konrad...just like they've been doing for...oh the last 10,000 years! That's why it's called an INTERGLACIAL period!

 

[westwall]

Um, guys, they're still melting. So there is no win, just an adjustment in prediction.

It's like saying there is only a five foot hole in the boat instead of a 15 foot hole. The boat still sinks, but just takes a little longer.

I'm surprised you could stop laughing sKOOKs ....didn't know it was possible to laugh with one's foot planted firmly in one's mouth 24/7....

Uh, Dr. Grump......uh here's a little history for you. 10,000 years ago there was a whole butt ton of ice on the continent. Then 10,000 years ago it got a lot warmer and the ice all melted away, though it took a long time to do it.....in fact it's still going on, and that is where we are today. the ice is STILL melting from the end of the Ice Age. Every now and then there is a little burp like the Little Ice Age or the 6th century climate catastrophe when the temps drop back down and people freeze and starve, but then we've been lucky and the planet warmed back up to the current pleasant (and even in some times MUCH warmer than the present day) climate we get to enjoy today!

 

[westwall]

I liked this part here:

Scientists measured the change in the ice caps by analysing changes in Earth’s gravitational field using two satellites, which monitor the distribution of mass on Earth including ice and water.

I love it when right wingers laugh at "scientists" and "science". See? It's "scientists" who are doing the measuring. The odds are it's either a "liberal" or a "Democrat".

No, we like scientists. Scientists are the people who have made our current extraordinarilly prosperous lifestyle possible. The scientists we dislike are those who just want to steal our money and give us nothing for it. You know, the ones you like...the ghuys who've managed to squander 100 billion dollars oer the last 20 years and have given nothing to mankind.

Or am I missing something? If I have missed some great technological innovation that they have produced please enlighten me for I would surely like to know of it.

If we give that amount of money to chemists we get all sorts of useful products. If we give it to doctors we get medecines and surgical procedures that save lives and heal people.

If we give it to geologists we get improved ways of building our various structures andf roads so that when earthquakes occur the damage is minimized.

But climatologists?????....I can't think of a SINGLE thing they have produced for that 100 billion dollars...can you?

 

[Trajan]

Well there they go again! Yet another slap in the face of the alarmists. A 50% miss rate is pretty sad.

Ice caps melting at half the speed that had been predicted | Mail Online

well for god sakes do something!!!!!

get down there with some space heaters and burn those puppies up,we cannot have the eco-fringe looking ridiculous...take the spares from the Himalayas since they won't be melting in 30 years....

 

[rdean]

I liked this part here:

Scientists measured the change in the ice caps by analysing changes in Earth’s gravitational field using two satellites, which monitor the distribution of mass on Earth including ice and water.

I love it when right wingers laugh at "scientists" and "science". See? It's "scientists" who are doing the measuring. The odds are it's either a "liberal" or a "Democrat".

No, we like scientists. Scientists are the people who have made our current extraordinarilly prosperous lifestyle possible. The scientists we dislike are those who just want to steal our money and give us nothing for it. You know, the ones you like...the ghuys who've managed to squander 100 billion dollars oer the last 20 years and have given nothing to mankind.

Or am I missing something? If I have missed some great technological innovation that they have produced please enlighten me for I would surely like to know of it.

If we give that amount of money to chemists we get all sorts of useful products. If we give it to doctors we get medecines and surgical procedures that save lives and heal people.

If we give it to geologists we get improved ways of building our various structures andf roads so that when earthquakes occur the damage is minimized.

But climatologists?????....I can't think of a SINGLE thing they have produced for that 100 billion dollars...can you?

Except weather forecasting, tornado forecasting and Hurricane watch, I can't think of a single thing either.

Hey, if you want to really know what Republicans think about science, you simply must visit, "Conservapedia".

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL...even the Farmers Almanac spokesperson today was talking about "continued global cooling". They are on the mark with weather FAR, FAR FAR more than the scientists are!!! The scientists.........with their predictions two years ago of 4 Gategory 5 storms in the Atlantic and 11 or 12 hurricanes. How many were there? ZERO!!!!

But we are going to rely on them to predict temperature 50 years from now...................









OK !!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Keep your eye on this forum.............in the next few months, some idiot scientist being secretly funded by GE is going to make some spectacular prediction on ice....or temperatures.....or yada yada..........

And every fcukking k00k sheep is going to fall all over themselves posting up how the world is going to end soon if...............

Tell me for a moment these people are not sitting on a fcukking butt plug most of their lives, living this irrelevant existence in front of their PC 17 hours a day???!!!!!! Of course they are ALWAYS go for anything hysterical as long as its uber hysterical. These people NEED shit like this to make their lives meaningful. Ever notice the same people are staunchly anti-capitalist as well as k00k environmentalist??? Coincidence?? Hardly..........these people are miserable almost 100% of their waking hours..........incredibly jealous of anybody who not only makes alot of money but also ANYBODY who is successful. Why? Because a vast amount of these environmental k00ks are fcukk-ups in the real world thus, they get behind ANY effort to turn this country on its head!!!! Ever notice that common theme amongst these fcukking k00ks???


You rarely find people in the real world hyperventilating about global warming. Why? Because they are blessed with the ability to be able to think on the margin.......to recognize that there are choices to be made in life, unfortunate as they may be, and idealism must be sidelined. In other words, the non-k00ks realize that the world is about necessary trade0ffs...........and that fcukking up the economy to the point of being un-repairable is not acceptable based upon a theory that cannot be proven.

People like Old Rocks, Chris and the other environmentalist hysterics...........its not that they arent smart. They are, however not in the world of abstracts............why do you think they tend to be so interested in science?? They just cannot do the abstract vision thing..........its not a strong part of the brain dynamic for these peole. I always sucked at science, and Im sure people like Old Rocks would pwn me in math and science related stuff. But these people also arent in the same zip code in terms of the abstract reasoning abilities of people like Westwall, myself and some others who peek in here. We can weigh necessary tradeoffs..........and arrive at a practical solution to problems. A closer look would also find that people like Westwall and myself have far greater social skills than people like Old Rocks, Chris et. al. Doesnt mean we're better.............just means there is more development of skills in one area vs. another. In a room where you have to engage other people in the give and take of conversation, Old Rocks is an oddball. In a science laboratory, trust me, IM a total oddball.

Where this all comes to a head is where science people get involved in public policy affairs. They just lack the intellectual ability to think on the margin, thus are forced to take these extremely radical positions..........and most fascinating.,....they are just fine being an oddball in these processes. That, of course, is why people like Westwall and me find this forum so damn hysterical.

 

[westwall]

Um, guys, they're still melting. So there is no win, just an adjustment in prediction.

It's like saying there is only a five foot hole in the boat instead of a 15 foot hole. The boat still sinks, but just takes a little longer.

I'm surprised you could stop laughing sKOOKs ....didn't know it was possible to laugh with one's foot planted firmly in one's mouth 24/7....

yeah, but they somehow feel like they know something if science needs adjustment.

i've just never figured out why the vested interest in science being wrong. there's something pathologic about it.

You're approaching it from the wrong direction Jillian. We don't want science to be "wrong".

We respect science. We despise the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION of science. When we call into question the malpractices of the climatologists we are following a time honored tradition of challenging the "norms". Think Galileo and Copernicus for instance. They challenged the Church mandated Earth centric theories of the day. We are merely following in that time honored tradition.

You should ask yourself if there is so much consensus why are there so many questions about how the climatologists are deriving their suppositions. Why won't they release their data? Why will they never test their theory in a lab setting (instead they rely on computer models that are incompetant at best), why is it that when their data is finally released there are ALLWAYS problems with it?

Look at their evidence from the viewpoint of a lawyer preparing for trial. So far wherever AGW has been tried in a court of law...it has lost.

 

[westwall]

I liked this part here:

Scientists measured the change in the ice caps by analysing changes in Earth’s gravitational field using two satellites, which monitor the distribution of mass on Earth including ice and water.

I love it when right wingers laugh at "scientists" and "science". See? It's "scientists" who are doing the measuring. The odds are it's either a "liberal" or a "Democrat".

No, we like scientists. Scientists are the people who have made our current extraordinarilly prosperous lifestyle possible. The scientists we dislike are those who just want to steal our money and give us nothing for it. You know, the ones you like...the ghuys who've managed to squander 100 billion dollars oer the last 20 years and have given nothing to mankind.

Or am I missing something? If I have missed some great technological innovation that they have produced please enlighten me for I would surely like to know of it.

If we give that amount of money to chemists we get all sorts of useful products. If we give it to doctors we get medecines and surgical procedures that save lives and heal people.

If we give it to geologists we get improved ways of building our various structures andf roads so that when earthquakes occur the damage is minimized.

But climatologists?????....I can't think of a SINGLE thing they have produced for that 100 billion dollars...can you?

Except weather forecasting, tornado forecasting and Hurricane watch, I can't think of a single thing either.

Hey, if you want to really know what Republicans think about science, you simply must visit, "Conservapedia".

Typical... Those gifts are from METEOROLOGISTS dillfod!


American Meteorological Society Home Page

You really don't have a clue do you!

 

[Gadawg73]

Um, guys, they're still melting. So there is no win, just an adjustment in prediction.

It's like saying there is only a five foot hole in the boat instead of a 15 foot hole. The boat still sinks, but just takes a little longer.

I'm surprised you could stop laughing sKOOKs ....didn't know it was possible to laugh with one's foot planted firmly in one's mouth 24/7....

yeah, but they somehow feel like they know something if science needs adjustment.

i've just never figured out why the vested interest in science being wrong. there's something pathologic about it.

You're approaching it from the wrong direction Jillian. We don't want science to be "wrong".

We respect science. We despise the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION of science. When we call into question the malpractices of the climatologists we are following a time honored tradition of challenging the "norms". Think Galileo and Copernicus for instance. They challenged the Church mandated Earth centric theories of the day. We are merely following in that time honored tradition.

You should ask yourself if there is so much consensus why are there so many questions about how the climatologists are deriving their suppositions. Why won't they release their data? Why will they never test their theory in a lab setting (instead they rely on computer models that are incompetant at best), why is it that when their data is finally released there are ALLWAYS problems with it?

Look at their evidence from the viewpoint of a lawyer preparing for trial. So far wherever AGW has been tried in a court of law...it has lost.

I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.

 

[westwall]

yeah, but they somehow feel like they know something if science needs adjustment.

i've just never figured out why the vested interest in science being wrong. there's something pathologic about it.

You're approaching it from the wrong direction Jillian. We don't want science to be "wrong".

We respect science. We despise the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION of science. When we call into question the malpractices of the climatologists we are following a time honored tradition of challenging the "norms". Think Galileo and Copernicus for instance. They challenged the Church mandated Earth centric theories of the day. We are merely following in that time honored tradition.

You should ask yourself if there is so much consensus why are there so many questions about how the climatologists are deriving their suppositions. Why won't they release their data? Why will they never test their theory in a lab setting (instead they rely on computer models that are incompetant at best), why is it that when their data is finally released there are ALLWAYS problems with it?

Look at their evidence from the viewpoint of a lawyer preparing for trial. So far wherever AGW has been tried in a court of law...it has lost.

I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.

Well lets see here. The Al Gore flick An Inconvenient Truth was brought to trial by a English truck driver. Yes he recieved some funding (but not from Big Oil) help but he believed that the movie was not telling the truth and he didn't want his kids to watch propaganda. He sued and even with the backing of the government of the UK (I will hazard a guess that they had more money than Mr. Dimmock) and the best representation that Al Gore could provide them the court ruled that there were 11 major errors of fact.



Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

 

[westwall]

yeah, but they somehow feel like they know something if science needs adjustment.

i've just never figured out why the vested interest in science being wrong. there's something pathologic about it.

You're approaching it from the wrong direction Jillian. We don't want science to be "wrong".

We respect science. We despise the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION of science. When we call into question the malpractices of the climatologists we are following a time honored tradition of challenging the "norms". Think Galileo and Copernicus for instance. They challenged the Church mandated Earth centric theories of the day. We are merely following in that time honored tradition.

You should ask yourself if there is so much consensus why are there so many questions about how the climatologists are deriving their suppositions. Why won't they release their data? Why will they never test their theory in a lab setting (instead they rely on computer models that are incompetant at best), why is it that when their data is finally released there are ALLWAYS problems with it?

Look at their evidence from the viewpoint of a lawyer preparing for trial. So far wherever AGW has been tried in a court of law...it has lost.

I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.

Oh yes I almost forgot your tobacco analogy, there were no tobacco trials I can find till 1900, and they lost. Tennessee outlawed the sale of cigarettes along with three other states and the SCOTUS upheld the ban. It took until 1918 for most of the bans to be lifted at the request of the smokers and the tobacco industry. No trial just the usual purchasing of your local legislater.

The next trial occured in 1950 with P. Lorillard Co. v. FTC. Lorillard makers of Old Golds. It was a advertising complaint....and they lost.

The next case is PRITCHARD VS. LIGGETT & MYERS: in 1954 and the plaintiff lost because he was tring to prove negligence on the part of the tobacco companies.

After that there are a lot of cases filed and lost because the litigants kept trying to prove negligence. The only negligent people were the smokers. Then finally a "hacker" (ooooh you only like them when they work on your side) released internal docs that showed the companies weren't negligent they were actively suppressing evidence (sound like someone else we know?) manufacturing data to support their pre-concieved notions (now who else do we know who is doing that?) and otherwise engaging in other nefarious activities to further their aims while ignoring the impact on the people involved.

Wow, you're correct, the TOBACCO companies behaved JUST LIKE THE AGW CONSPIRATORS ARE NOW!