• 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!

Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

Threegoofs said:
I just wish we had a place to discuss this without having to wade through dozens Jacks cut and paste denier blog posts, with no (or vapid) commentary from him.

Every friggin thread.
Click to expand...

I know. All his copied and pasted conspiracy/pseudoscience blog crap belongs in the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum.

It's the main reason I took a long break from posting in this forum.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
There is no 'tipping point'. The level of Greenland's ice is a stable system. Unstable systems would have already triggered. It is not melting, either.
Click to expand...

I’ll alert the authors to your astute, anonymous observation.
 
calamity said:
More irrefutable evidence that we have a real problem.
Click to expand...

The DK effect in you is ignoring the natural cyclical nature of things. To claim it's "irrefutable..." Proves you are in that first part of the curve.
 
Threegoofs said:
I just wish we had a place to discuss this without having to wade through dozens Jacks cut and paste denier blog posts, with no (or vapid) commentary from him.

Every friggin thread.
Click to expand...

Quaestio said:
I know. All his copied and pasted conspiracy/pseudoscience blog crap belongs in the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum.

It's the main reason I took a long break from posting in this forum.
Click to expand...

These posts are of course denial of the most simple-minded kind. Fact is my posts convey data, almost always from peer-reviewed research. The sources of your frustration are reality and peer-reviewed research, not "conspiracy blogs" or me.
 
Jack Hays said:
These posts are of course denial of the most simple-minded kind. Fact is my posts convey data, almost always from peer-reviewed research. The sources of your frustration are reality and peer-reviewed research, not "conspiracy blogs" or me.
Click to expand...

:lamo Your last citation in this thread was of a non-peer reviewed document written by a right-wing activist with no scientific qualifications. You seem to have completely lost track of what constitutes reality.
 
Surface Detail said:
:lamo Your last citation in this thread was of a non-peer reviewed document written by a right-wing activist with no scientific qualifications. You seem to have completely lost track of what constitutes reality.
Click to expand...

Do try to keep up.
1. ". . . almost always . . . "
2. Already mentioned as from the NY Times bestseller list rather than peer-reviewed.
 
Jack Hays said:
Do try to keep up.
1. ". . . almost always . . . "
2. Already mentioned as from the NY Times bestseller list rather than peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Almost all of your links are to propaganda blogs (such as WUWT) or to papers that are indeed peer-reviewed but which don't actually support your arguments.
 
Surface Detail said:
Nonsense. Almost all of your links are to propaganda blogs (such as WUWT) or to papers that are indeed peer-reviewed but which don't actually support your arguments.
Click to expand...

My arguments derive from the findings of peer-reviewed papers. The post above is your usual false claim; your problem is with the reality of nature and science, not with me.
 
Jack Hays said:
My arguments derive from the findings of peer-reviewed papers. The post above is your usual false claim; your problem is with the reality of nature and science, not with me.
Click to expand...

The links are to denier blogs incompetently dismissing findings from peer reviewed research about 90% of the time.

Including a reference to a study doesn’t mean your posting a study...
 
Threegoofs said:
The links are to denier blogs incompetently dismissing findings from peer reviewed research about 90% of the time.

Including a reference to a study doesn’t mean your posting a study...
Click to expand...

Your claim is false. Peer-reviewed research is the basis of my arguments. It is true that the closed and clubby culture of climate science sometimes requires a needed corrective from outside perspectives, a la Nic Lewis, but those should be evaluated on the merits, not dismissed with a wave of the hand.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your claim is false. Peer-reviewed research is the basis of my arguments. It is true that the closed and clubby culture of climate science sometimes requires a needed corrective from outside perspectives, a la Nic Lewis, but those should be evaluated on the merits, not dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Click to expand...

Trashing peer reviewed literature with smateur, often anonymous blog posters is the basis for your arguments.
 
calamity said:
More irrefutable evidence that we have a real problem.
Click to expand...

The authors found that ice loss in 2012, more than 400 billion tons per year, was nearly four times the rate in 2003. After a lull in 2013-14, losses have resumed.
Click to expand...

So a millimeter a year then. Off and on. If you think there are 20 Mississippi sized rivers flowing out of Greenland for 2 months each summer... or so...

So that's 4 inches per century. OK.
 
Jack Hays said:
These posts are of course denial of the most simple-minded kind. Fact is my posts convey data, almost always from peer-reviewed research. The sources of your frustration are reality and peer-reviewed research, not "conspiracy blogs" or me.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. The bulk of your spam copied and pasted pseudoscience/conspiracy blog posts are opinion pieces by laymen like house carpenters, massage therapists, retired accountants etc who incompetently criticize peer-reviewed literature, make up pseudo-science nonsense, make ad hominem attacks on scientists, or indulge in ridiculous conspiracy ideation.
 
Last edited:
How many 'tipping points' have there been already ?

#SMIRK #LAFF#
 
Quaestio said:
Bollocks. The bulk of your spam copied and pasted pseudoscience/conspiracy blog posts are opinion pieces by laymen like house carpenters, massage therapists, retired accountants etc who incompetently criticize peer-reviewed literature, make up pseudo-science nonsense, make ad hominem attacks on scientists, or indulge in ridiculous conspiracy ideation.
Click to expand...

This is a false claim, sadly consistent with past practice.
 
calamity said:
More irrefutable evidence that we have a real problem.
Click to expand...

Real scientific articles - one after another - seems most of the world is listening, other than the Oil Industry funded deniers.
 
Greenland has been warm before.


Study shows that Vikings enjoyed a warmer Greenland

Public Release: 6-Feb-2019 Study shows that Vikings enjoyed a warmer Greenland Chemistry of bugs trapped in ancient lake sediment shows a warm climate at a key time in Greenland’s history Northwestern University EVANSTON, Ill. — A new study may resolve an old debate about how tough the Vikings actually were. Although TV and movies…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom