So how do you explain the ice caps continuously melting at an alarming rate year after year. And don't bother pointing to this year where they froze more than usual. I'm talking about the trend that each year they almost melt completely. Go back a page or so and I posted an article showing that data from a satellite showed conclusively that they have lost enough mass to mess with the gravity in those areas
That was a pretty funny post. "Throwing off the earth's gravitational field". Since the arctic has been ice free
many times in earth's history, this is obviously not a problem But that didn't stop it being termed as "Yeah, pretty sure that's bad.".
Really? "Pretty sure that's bad"? The tiny change in gravity never was a problem before...but now it's something to cause people to hide under the covers of their beds?
Alarmists never fail to impress me with their willingness to assign doom to any and all occurrences.
Even better that the poster in this thread who keeps claiming he is a "scientist" had no comment on that article at all. I guess it's ok when it supports an agenda.
EDIT: also please explain why large corporations that have places of business near the sea are preparing those places for rising sea levels?
That's a great example of how we have and will continue to adapt to anything that happens. It's what we do. One of the main things doomsayers always leave out when they predict our imminent demise.
Yes that's right....doomsayers ignore the greatest talent of the human race in order to support the doom predictions.
Not in statistical analysis.
Ok...what does "significant" mean exactly. Remember you aren't allowed to use any other words to nail down its exact meaning because the "consensus" survey didn't do that.
Doc said:
About which I wasn't speaking.
Unfortunately, that was the topic of conversation.
Doc said:
Way to take what I said completely out of context.
We're talking about the fabricated "consensus" here. You described exactly the way scientists really behave.
Doc said:
I most certainly did.
Not at all. You answered the views of a scientist describing his views in a video with a link to a blog post that was so devoid of facts it could only point to a time period of "50-100 years". The IPCC won't venture back any further than 1950...but the blog needs to include all the warming since the LII ended...can't let any natural warming into the conversation, can we?
I agree with the scientist, you agree with the blog post that bases its conclusions on a
lack of information. ("We can't explain it")
Doc said:
A little context would be nice here. There's a difference between debating the finer points of warming and debating whether it's anthropogenic.
How much of the warming is anthropogenic is one of the "finer points". You trying to leave that part out? How about the debate over climate sensitivity? That's a pretty big one.
Again, most agree with the idea that some warming is due to human activity (including the skeptical scientists that alarmists attack), the debate begins from that point. Alarmists imply both that all the warming is human caused and that warming is catastrophic. Both those ideas are very much up for debate. There is a
reason why the consensus survey did not bother to ask "Will the warming be catastrophic?" That's because scientists don't agree on that.
I suppose you'll ignore the fact that the main point of AGW alarmism is claiming that warming will be catastrophic and that is what all the "We must change our lifestyle now or we are doomed" is based upon. This is
not about "agreeing that the earth has warmed and that man has played a role". Because we all agree on that.
Doc said:
1) You criticize my use of the word "significant," in one breath, then justify it the next. Brilliant.
I criticize the use of the word in the consensus survey where no attempt was made to clarify the term. Their use of the word was not scientific in the slightest.
Doc said:
2) A lack of statistical significant does not automatically translate to "it's not happening." It represents a failure to reject a null hypothesis. Do you understand what this means?
I do. It's what alarmists have dismissed from the conversation since 1988. Another reason why it's obviously political.
Good. Yet another "promise" that is merely a way to pass the buck and gives politicians something to brag about and claim they did something.
They've been doing things like that for decades. It has resulted in the biggest increase in CO2 emissions in human history. Somewhere, Bjorn Lomborg is shaking his head in dismay. He's the most sensible AGW believer there is.