So the Oceans are rising are they?

[IanC]

FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)

Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?

I dont have a link handy, sorry. 0.7C is about 1.2F. depending on how much of the warming is directly attributable to the increase of CO2 that doesnt add up to much.

 

[RollingThunder]

...global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

And the dingbat deniers fail again as they make up more lies and distortions. Look at the title of this thread: "So the Oceans are rising are they?" The denier who started the thread clearly imagines that the study cited means that sea levels aren't rising. But of course, he's wrong again, as usual. Sea levels are rising, as the authors of this study affirm.

An editorial about this study was published in that fruitcake Mooney rag called the Washington Post. It was certainly and inevitably parroted on all of the denier cult blogs and disinformation sites as more "proof" that sea levels aren't rising as the IPCC and numerous scientists around the world claim, based on a variety of measurements including satellite altimeters and direct measurements of the amount of ice melting off of Greenland, Antarctica and the world's glaciers. Here's what the authors of the study had to say about sea level rise.

Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times' Distortion Of Their Work
(short excerpt as allowed under copyright law and forum rules)

A Washington Times editorial falsely claims that a recent sea level study "shows oceans are not rising." In fact, the study does not dispute that sea levels are rising, and the study's author calls the Washington Times' claim "a mischaracterization of our work." Study Author James R. Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times, stated in an email: "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...". ...Media Matters asked Houston about the Wash. Times' statement that "The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast." Houston replied that this was a reference to satellite measurements, not the tide gauge measurements that his study analyzed. Houston also stated: "Basically, from 1993 to 2010, sea level rise measured by satellite altimeters has been remarkably spatially variable over the planet. But if you add up all the ups and downs, the net effect has been a rise measured by the altimeters of about 3.1 millimeters per year from 1993 to 2010. The newspaper article implies that the net effect has been no rise. This is not the case." ...Responding to the Washington Times' claim that his study "shows oceans are not rising," Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering of the University of Florida, stated via email: "There is a difference between "rising" and "accelerating". Accelerating means that the rate of rise is increasing. Sea level in the 20th Century was (and is) rising, it wasn't accelerating taking the entire century as a whole. Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."

© 2011 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Oh look! TrollingBlunder has returned. damn.

Oh look! One of this forum's resident retards pops up with his usual meaningless and vapid pseudo-rebuttal.

Gonna have to put that ignore back up.

Well of course you have to do that. Like most denier cult pussies, you can't handle any real world facts that might upset your delusions.

But note his 'news source'

Yeah, my source. The scientists who authored the paper quoted in the OP. The scientists who say that sea levels are indeed rising.

You are such an imbicile!!!

 

[IanC]

the title of this thread is misleading. the link in the OP is talking about whether the rise in sea level is accelerating (CAGW position), deaccelerating or staying the same. the Alarmists keep saying that temperatures and sea levels are going to dramatically rise (acceleration). most of the evidence taken from the oceans says that this is not happening, contrary to what the climate models proclaim.

but the thread title is incorrect. sea level is going up at the same rate as it has since the end of the little ice age.

 

[Big Fitz]

And the dingbat deniers fail again as they make up more lies and distortions. Look at the title of this thread: "So the Oceans are rising are they?" The denier who started the thread clearly imagines that the study cited means that sea levels aren't rising. But of course, he's wrong again, as usual. Sea levels are rising, as the authors of this study affirm.

An editorial about this study was published in that fruitcake Mooney rag called the Washington Post. It was certainly and inevitably parroted on all of the denier cult blogs and disinformation sites as more "proof" that sea levels aren't rising as the IPCC and numerous scientists around the world claim, based on a variety of measurements including satellite altimeters and direct measurements of the amount of ice melting off of Greenland, Antarctica and the world's glaciers. Here's what the authors of the study had to say about sea level rise.

Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times' Distortion Of Their Work
(short excerpt as allowed under copyright law and forum rules)

A Washington Times editorial falsely claims that a recent sea level study "shows oceans are not rising." In fact, the study does not dispute that sea levels are rising, and the study's author calls the Washington Times' claim "a mischaracterization of our work." Study Author James R. Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times, stated in an email: "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...". ...Media Matters asked Houston about the Wash. Times' statement that "The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast." Houston replied that this was a reference to satellite measurements, not the tide gauge measurements that his study analyzed. Houston also stated: "Basically, from 1993 to 2010, sea level rise measured by satellite altimeters has been remarkably spatially variable over the planet. But if you add up all the ups and downs, the net effect has been a rise measured by the altimeters of about 3.1 millimeters per year from 1993 to 2010. The newspaper article implies that the net effect has been no rise. This is not the case." ...Responding to the Washington Times' claim that his study "shows oceans are not rising," Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering of the University of Florida, stated via email: "There is a difference between "rising" and "accelerating". Accelerating means that the rate of rise is increasing. Sea level in the 20th Century was (and is) rising, it wasn't accelerating taking the entire century as a whole. Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."

© 2011 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Oh look! TrollingBlunder has returned. damn.

Oh look! One of this forum's resident retards pops up with his usual meaningless and vapid pseudo-rebuttal.

Gonna have to put that ignore back up.

Well of course you have to do that. Like most denier cult pussies, you can't handle any real world facts that might upset your delusions.

But note his 'news source'

Yeah, my source. The scientists who authored the paper quoted in the OP. The scientists who say that sea levels are indeed rising.

You are such an imbicile!!!

Consider it my little part to raise the intellectual quotient of the board by filtering complete idiots out. I was hoping you were gone, but well... they were dashed again.

 

[Zander]

 

[Cuyo]

FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)

Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?

I dont have a link handy, sorry. 0.7C is about 1.2F. depending on how much of the warming is directly attributable to the increase of CO2 that doesnt add up to much.

Are you aware that the 'Ice Age' was only 8 degrees (c) cooler than current temperatures? Took about 20,000 years to rise to current levels.

.7 degrees in 100 years is astoundingly fast from a historic perspective, especially since there is every scientific reason to believe it will continue and increase along with increasing CO2 levels.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now that is just the level of knowledge on would expect from Zander.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the alpine glaciers, and the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are above sea level.

 

[RollingThunder]

the title of this thread is misleading. the link in the OP is talking about whether the rise in sea level is accelerating (CAGW position), deaccelerating or staying the same. the Alarmists keep saying that temperatures and sea levels are going to dramatically rise (acceleration). most of the evidence taken from the oceans says that this is not happening, contrary to what the climate models proclaim.

but the thread title is incorrect. sea level is going up at the same rate as it has since the end of the little ice age.

And another denier cult dingbat who manages to be wrong about everything. Not too surprising.

"Most of the evidence taken from the oceans" actually indicates that sea levels are rising and that the rate at which that is happening is increasing.

Global Mean Sea Level Reconstruction since 1700 by Jevrejeva et al, 2008

***

You say: "sea level is going up at the same rate as it has since the end of the little ice age" but that's just another idiotically ignorant denier cult myth.

Roman Decadence and Rising Seas

November 15, 2010
(short excerpt)

...some persuasive evidence points to the conclusion that the volume of the ocean was fairly stable for the last 2,000 years and began rising only recently, more or less in sync with industrialization. One of the most compelling studies of recent years...focused on ancient fish tanks built at the edge of the Mediterranean by the Romans over the 300 years when their civilization was at its height, ending in the second century A.D. The tanks, described in some detail by Roman historians...were usually carved into rock at the edge of the shore and constructed in such a way that some of their features bore precise relationships to sea level at the time. For instance, walls and sluice gates had to be built to let water into the tanks while keeping fish from escaping at high tide. A few years ago, Dr. Lambeck, of the Australian National University, and his team realized that these features could be used to arrive at an estimate of sea level in the time of the Romans.

***

***

"20,000 years ago, at the height of the last ice age, sea level was down almost 400 feet. Nearly all the rise occurred in about 14,000 years, with the last 6,000 years almost at a stable sea level. Since recorded human history only covers about 6 - 8 thousand years, that is undoubtedly the reason we tend to believe the shoreline to be essentially fixed -- and why we built cities right up to the shore."
-- John Englander



***

 

[IanC]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

here is the list of tide gauge data from NOAA. it goes up and down in different places and averages out to less than 5mm/decade. lower than the usual figure of 18mm/decade
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html

I suppose you are in love with satellite altimetry figures. you do realize that the satellites only have a precision level of about 20mm don't you? and that they are calibrated (often) to tidal gauges? I think your faith in some aspects of modern technology is not commensurate to the reality of the measurements.

even your link shows a graph with a straight linear trend from 1870- 2010

are you arguing that 1870(start of thermometer records) is later than the end of the LIA (some say 1850) or that that graph is not perfectly straight or that 'satellite' data is higher or better? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the facts and figures are imprecise and inaccurate to one degree or another. just like all the temp data are imprecise and inaccurate. and while we're at it, the concept of having an single absolute number for global temperature, global temperature increase (decrease), global sea level, or global sea level increase (decrease) is ridiculous.

 

[Cuyo]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not. Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.

#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial. It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.

 

[Old Rocks]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

here is the list of tide gauge data from NOAA. it goes up and down in different places and averages out to less than 5mm/decade. lower than the usual figure of 18mm/decade
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html

I suppose you are in love with satellite altimetry figures. you do realize that the satellites only have a precision level of about 20mm don't you? and that they are calibrated (often) to tidal gauges? I think your faith in some aspects of modern technology is not commensurate to the reality of the measurements.

even your link shows a graph with a straight linear trend from 1870- 2010

are you arguing that 1870(start of thermometer records) is later than the end of the LIA (some say 1850) or that that graph is not perfectly straight or that 'satellite' data is higher or better? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the facts and figures are imprecise and inaccurate to one degree or another. just like all the temp data are imprecise and inaccurate. and while we're at it, the concept of having an single absolute number for global temperature, global temperature increase (decrease), global sea level, or global sea level increase (decrease) is ridiculous.

Once again, Ian, are you unable to read a graph? 1870 to 1930 rose at a much slower rate than 1930 to 1960. From 1968 to about 2005, a slightly slower rate than the period from 1930 to 1960. 2005 to 2010, steep rise and fall, not a long enough period to establish a line.

 

[Big Fitz]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not. Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.

#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial. It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.

wow. I'd love to see the scientific PROOF that it's all man's fault.

 

[westwall]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not. Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.

#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial. It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.

We're not sure. That's the way science is. Science doesn't (well at least good science)dabble in absolutes. Absolutes are the purview of religion not scientific endeavors. What we are sure about is that the most well known of the alarmist scientists have been manufacturing and manipulating data. That's the only thing we're sure of. We have very good empirical data that shows all of the phenomena that alarmists put forward as evidence for their theory has happened in the past without mans influence...that weakens the case for AGW.

But we don't "know" anything. Nor have we ever claimed to.

 

[RollingThunder]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

You can't "figure out" the reason because you're in a kind of willful (or brainwashed) denial of the fact that there is a world scientific consensus that is based on mountains of evidence gathered by tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world for many decades. The consensus is based on the science and the evidence, not the other way around. Meanwhile, the sane, rational and intelligent people of the world look at you denier cult crazies and see clearly that you dupes are convinced that you are right and all of the scientists are wrong not because of any actual evidence but only because you've been brainwashed by the anti-science propaganda campaign that has been mounted by the fossil fuel industry. You deniers are their "useful idiots" and ideological 'foot-soldiers' in their attempt to delay the necessary legal restrictions on carbon emissions, which would, of course, also reduce the fossil fuel industry's current trillion dollar a year profit stream.

Scientific opinion on climate change

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

here is the list of tide gauge data from NOAA. it goes up and down in different places and averages out to less than 5mm/decade. lower than the usual figure of 18mm/decade
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html

Once again you've been duped by some denier cult blog who showed you a partial data set and pretended that it was definitive.

From the US Environmental Protection Agency's site on Sea Level.

Limitations - Tidal gauge measurements cannot distinguish whether changes in relative sea level are due to changes in absolute sea level or changes in land elevation.

What the data shows - Relative sea levels (combined land and sea movement) in many locations rose from 1958 to 2008, typically at rates of 0-3 millimeters per year (mm/yr) (up to 1 foot per century) (Exhibit 6-20). Relative sea level has risen more rapidly along the mid-Atlantic coast and the Gulf Coast, with rates as high as 8 or 9 mm/yr at a few locations on the Gulf Coast. Other areas, including most of the southern coast of Alaska, show relative sea level drop, with a maximum decrease of 14 mm/yr. [/size]

[Just to clear up that point, I'm inserting something here. "Relative sea level drop" actually means in this case that Alaska is rising as the weight of the glaciers and snow cap melts off.

As Alaska Glaciers Melt, It’s Land That’s Rising
(short excerpt)
The geology is complex, but it boils down to this: Relieved of billions of tons of glacial weight, the land has risen much as a cushion regains its shape after someone gets up from a couch. The land is ascending so fast that the rising seas — a ubiquitous byproduct of global warming — cannot keep pace. As a result, the relative sea level is falling, at a rate “among the highest ever recorded,” according to a 2007 report by a panel of experts convened by Mayor Bruce Botelho of Juneau.]​

Average relative sea level rise for all U.S. coasts was not calculated because the distribution of tidal gauge stations is not spatially representative of aggregate trends, but for reference, an analysis of tidal gauge data worldwide estimated that on average, relative sea level rose between 1.5 and 2.0 mm/yr during the 20th century (Miller and Douglas, 2004).

The satellite record shows that global mean absolute sea level (i.e., independent of land movements) has increased at a rate of 3.2 mm (0.13 inches) per year since 1993 (Exhibit 6-21). Absolute sea levels do not change uniformly around the Earth, however. Around the U.S., areas with increasing absolute sea level include the Gulf coast and portions of the Atlantic coast (Exhibit 6-22). Areas showing a decrease include the southern part of the Pacific coast and the western Gulf of Alaska.

I suppose you are in love with satellite altimetry figures. you do realize that the satellites only have a precision level of about 20mm don't you? and that they are calibrated (often) to tidal gauges? I think your faith in some aspects of modern technology is not commensurate to the reality of the measurements.

Actually, 20 millimeters, or about three-quarters of an inch, is pretty damn accurate. More accurate than the so-called tidal gauges. Moreover the satellite measurements are combined with other measurements to further refine the figures.

even your link shows a graph with a straight linear trend from 1870- 2010

Actually it doesn't show a "straight linear trend". You just apparently have some difficulty comprehending graphs.

I notice that you conveniently ignored the other graph in that post.

are you arguing that 1870(start of thermometer records) is later than the end of the LIA (some say 1850) or that that graph is not perfectly straight or that 'satellite' data is higher or better? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the facts and figures are imprecise and inaccurate to one degree or another. just like all the temp data are imprecise and inaccurate. and while we're at it, the concept of having an single absolute number for global temperature, global temperature increase (decrease), global sea level, or global sea level increase (decrease) is ridiculous.

LOLOLOL....you're too ignorant to understand how scientists come to their conclusions using the data they have so you proclaim that it is all too inaccurate for any conclusions....LOLOLOLOL. And you wonder why you dingbats are called 'deniers'.

 

[Old Rocks]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not. Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.

#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial. It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.

wow. I'd love to see the scientific PROOF that it's all man's fault.

Tyndall

 

[signelect]

I know, lets just kill all the people and the problem will go away.. I think that there is a plan in place for that already.

 

[konradv]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not. Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.

#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial. It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.

wow. I'd love to see the scientific PROOF that it's all man's fault.

Since no amount of data ever seems to be enough proof for you, I think it's up to you to tell us where the extra GHGs, above historical averages, are coming from, if not from man. We know what GHGs do, it's up to the deniers to show why, if there's more aound, they wouldn't trap even more energy. Don't care about your snide little comments. Show us something. Give us the run down on how energy just disappears. Could be a Nobel in it for you!!!

 

[westwall]

I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not. Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.

#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial. It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.

wow. I'd love to see the scientific PROOF that it's all man's fault.

Since no amount of data ever seems to be enough proof for you, I think it's up to you to tell us where the extra GHGs, above historical averages, are coming from, if not from man. We know what GHGs do, it's up to the deniers to show why, if there's more aound, they wouldn't trap even more energy. Don't care about your snide little comments. Show us something. Give us the run down on how energy just disappears. Could be a Nobel in it for you!!!

Read this first then get back to us. And to answer your petulant cry, no amount of "manipulated" data will make us change our minds. Show us some good un-screwed with data and we will be all ears.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf

 

[RollingThunder]

We're not sure. That's the way science is. Science doesn't (well at least good science)dabble in absolutes. Absolutes are the purview of religion not scientific endeavors.

Mmmmm....pretty good so far, in general, but kind of dogmatic on its own. Is science really "not sure" about everything? How about this statement.

Definition: Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature, at which point the atoms of a substance transmit no thermal energy - they are completely at rest. It is 0 degrees on the Kelvin scale, which translates to -273.15 degrees Celsius (or -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit).

How about it, walleyed? Do you think that there is a way for temperatures to go below absolute zero?

What we are sure about is that the most well known of the alarmist scientists have been manufacturing and manipulating data. That's the only thing we're sure of.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...and here's where your usual hypocrisy starts (this time). You claim that scientists "can't" be sure about anything in some absolute sense, while ignoring the fact that they are pretty sure about a lot of things based on a preponderance of evidence, and then you claim that you are absolutely sure about something scientific based only on your own ignorance and stupidity and the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign, not any actual facts or evidence. Scientists being "pretty sure" about their conclusions got us to the moon and has proved for the last few centuries to be the most accurate guide for our civilization about how the physical world works and the probable consequences of our actions.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
(short excerpt)

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
* Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.
* Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.
* An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

Background Information
* Scientists Statement—An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails (pdf)
* Letter from James McCarthy, a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, to Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (pdf)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyzeIU80qXo]YouTube - U.S. Govt. Study Debunks 'Climate-Gate'[/ame]

We have very good empirical data that shows all of the phenomena that alarmists put forward as evidence for their theory has happened in the past without mans influence...that weakens the case for AGW.

Well, that is one of your delusions but, like most everything you say, it is another lie coming from a very ignorant and confused dupe. Many current phenomena associated with the current global warming and climate change are happening at rates faster than any such observed changes ever happened before in Earth's geological history. And just because some things happened in the past due to natural causes does not mean that those things can't be happening now because of man's influence. There are many indicators that this current abrupt warming and climate disruptions are traceable to recent human activities like large scale deforestation and the release of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere through the massive use of fossil fuels.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(short excerpt)

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas]YouTube - What We Know about Climate Change[/ame]

But we don't "know" anything.

That's the most honest thing you've ever said. It perfectly sums up the denier cult.

Nor have we ever claimed to.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....hilarious....you wackos are always claiming to know all kinds of things that aren't true. Your continuous hypocrisy is sooooo amusing to watch.


***

 

[westwall]

We're not sure. That's the way science is. Science doesn't (well at least good science)dabble in absolutes. Absolutes are the purview of religion not scientific endeavors.

Mmmmm....pretty good so far, in general, but kind of dogmatic on its own. Is science really "not sure" about everything? How about this statement.

Definition: Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature, at which point the atoms of a substance transmit no thermal energy - they are completely at rest. It is 0 degrees on the Kelvin scale, which translates to -273.15 degrees Celsius (or -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit).

How about it, walleyed? Do you think that there is a way for temperatures to go below absolute zero?

What we are sure about is that the most well known of the alarmist scientists have been manufacturing and manipulating data. That's the only thing we're sure of.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...and here's where your usual hypocrisy starts (this time). You claim that scientists "can't" be sure about anything in some absolute sense, while ignoring the fact that they are pretty sure about a lot of things based on a preponderance of evidence, and then you claim that you are absolutely sure about something scientific based only on your own ignorance and stupidity and the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign, not any actual facts or evidence. Scientists being "pretty sure" about their conclusions got us to the moon and has proved for the last few centuries to be the most accurate guide for our civilization about how the physical world works and the probable consequences of our actions.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
(short excerpt)

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
* Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.
* Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.
* An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

Background Information
* Scientists Statement—An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails (pdf)
* Letter from James McCarthy, a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, to Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (pdf)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyzeIU80qXo]YouTube - U.S. Govt. Study Debunks 'Climate-Gate'[/ame]





Well, that is one of your delusions but, like most everything you say, it is another lie coming from a very ignorant and confused dupe. Many current phenomena associated with the current global warming and climate change are happening at rates faster than any such observed changes ever happened before in Earth's geological history. And just because some things happened in the past due to natural causes does not mean that those things can't be happening now because of man's influence. There are many indicators that this current abrupt warming and climate disruptions are traceable to recent human activities like large scale deforestation and the release of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere through the massive use of fossil fuels.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(short excerpt)

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas]YouTube - What We Know about Climate Change[/ame]

But we don't "know" anything.

That's the most honest thing you've ever said. It perfectly sums up the denier cult.

Nor have we ever claimed to.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....hilarious....you wackos are always claiming to know all kinds of things that aren't true. Your continuous hypocrisy is sooooo amusing to watch.


***

TROLLING BLUNDER! Where ya been boy! It's been months! County Jail huh? Now to your bloviating nonsense, absolute zero is a theory. It has not been confirmed with empirical tests so, based on the current knowledge we have with the tests we can run, yes absolute zero is the bottom. However, it is certainly possible that some new device or theory comes along and invalidates the whole thing.

Remember, Einsteins equations allow for the possiblity of faster than light travel...he didn't like that fact but it is a fact non the less. Appeals to authority get you nowhere with real scientists my young man. That particular tactic is only useful with the mindless general public who havn't the intellectual capacity to think for themselves.

And these scientists certainly feel the alarmist data is wrong and manufactured.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf