• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where Glaciers Are Growing[W:129]

bubbabgone said:
Is melting Arctic ice while Antarctic ice reached its' maximum ... fake?
Is the fact that sea ice goes through cycles of melting corresponding to natural warming ocean oscillations ... fake?
Click to expand...

No, it is not fake. Weather occurs.
 
soylentgreen said:
No they are not. At least not on any feeble attempt your trying for climate change denial. That they are comples does not give you leave to use that complexity to create a lie of no climate change.
A study done on local wether effecting local glaciers has nothing to do with climate change.
Click to expand...

And where have I mentioned climate change?
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate complexity.
Click to expand...

And... Don't stop going down this rabbit hole, as predictable as it is.

Pretending people will not understand what you have linked or think it to complex to read is about one of the lamest of dishonest climate denying tricks.
 
soylentgreen said:
And... Don't stop going down this rabbit hole, as predictable as it is.

Pretending people will not understand what you have linked or think it to complex to read is about one of the lamest of dishonest climate denying tricks.
Click to expand...

Your smug self-assurance that you understand my motive and objective has led you astray.
 
Middleground said:
Go. Visit. Relevant. Climate. Websites. Trust me, it will help you.
Click to expand...

That's where I started. Too many holes and too much argument from authority. You should familiarize yourself with Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's where I started. Too many holes and too much argument from authority. You should familiarize yourself with Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Complains about holes and argument from authority.

Cites two 'authorities' with studies that have holes like swiss cheese.
 
Jack Hays said:
21st century science supplanting 19th century science.
Click to expand...

Theres been a pretty extensive review of 21st century science done in this area. In fact, it was extensively reviewed twice in this century. Your guys done seem to actually get a mention.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your smug self-assurance that you understand my motive and objective has led you astray.
Click to expand...

While your attempt to sew confusion by mixing data an claiming complexity is the reason for not understanding has all the hallmarks of a con game.

Noted that you have failed to tell what exactly you do mean by the link. Another reason to see this as a poorly played game.
 
bubbabgone said:
Good.
Then we're in sync.
Nature keeps doing what it wants to do.

Any other good threads around here?
Click to expand...

Np, probably not after hearing that bit of crap.

Weather is a different subject from climate. The subject is climate change, not what will the weather do on the weekend.
 
Threegoofs said:
Theres been a pretty extensive review of 21st century science done in this area. In fact, it was extensively reviewed twice in this century. Your guys done seem to actually get a mention.
Click to expand...

The AGW concept is a fine achievement of 19th century science. Shaviv and Svensmark are in the 21st century.
 
soylentgreen said:
Np, probably not after hearing that bit of crap.

Weather is a different subject from climate. The subject is climate change, not what will the weather do on the weekend.
Click to expand...

but that's obvious.
if that's all you're saying then who could argue.
 
Jack Hays said:
The AGW concept is a fine achievement of 19th century science. Shaviv and Svensmark are in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Like I said, two extensive reviews of the literature have been done this century.

Your guys play virtually no role.
 
Jack Hays said:
The paper was just published.

The paper:
Mackintosh, A.N, Anderson, B.M, Lorrey, A.M, Renwick, J.A., Prisco Frei, & Dean, S.M., Regional cooling caused recent New Zealand glacier advances in a period of global warming. Nature Communications, February 2017
nature-communications-feb-2017 (PDF)
Click to expand...

For three hundred bucks I could publish a paper that just said "Anyone can publish a paper that says anything for three hundred bucks." over and over again.

"Starting October 2014, the journal only accepted submissions from authors willing to pay an article processing charge, and until the end of 2015, part of the published submissions were only available to subscribers. In January 2016, all content became freely accessible to the public.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Communications

You seem to think that just because someone is publishing something, they know what they are talking about.
 
Middleground said:
You really need to find a new place to get your information. WUWT is a website with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Your really need to find another way to process material you don't like that isn't a logical fallacy.
 
Jack Hays said:
In New Zealand glaciers have been growing (at least through 2008). Seems there's "regional cooling."

Glaciers
Study: Advancing glaciers in New Zealand are a sign of ‘regional cooling’

Reader Phil Hutchings writes via email: This article in Nature Communications caught my eye! This is a beauty. This week, Nature Communications published an explanation as to why (at least) 58 New Zealand glaciers grew in the twenty-five years to 2008. The aberrant behaviour by these naughty glaciers was perfectly explicable though – it was…

The paper:
Mackintosh, A.N, Anderson, B.M, Lorrey, A.M, Renwick, J.A., Prisco Frei, & Dean, S.M., Regional cooling caused recent New Zealand glacier advances in a period of global warming. Nature Communications, February 2017
nature-communications-feb-2017 (PDF)
Click to expand...

No mention of the other side, 90% of climate scientists opinion? Fits your made up mind?
 
Threegoofs said:
As, yes. It's a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Yes. Precisely . Exactly

Why do you insist on leading with your chin?

( I'm always happy to deliver the knockout though ...heh heh heh _)
Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.

o, this is not the punch line of a joke. A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans
Yet, partisan politics aside, why should it matter that there are so few Republican scientists? After all, it's the scientific facts that matter, and facts aren't blue or red.




Well, that's not quite right. Consider the case of climate change, of which beliefs are astonishingly polarized according to party affiliation and ideology. A March 2010 Gallup poll showed that 66 percent of Democrats (and 74 percent of liberals) say the effects of global warming are already occurring, as opposed to 31 percent of Republicans. Does that mean that Democrats are more than twice as likely to accept and understand the scientific truth of the matter? And that Republicans are dominated by scientifically illiterate yahoos and corporate shills willing to sacrifice the planet for short-term economic and political gain?

Or could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride? For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.


....MIC DROP.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom