Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

I understand that Al Gore had an hypothesis that in the year we are currently in, the world would essentially look completely different, I also understand that he was wrong as we can clearly see. Like I have always stated, Al Gore is not a scientist, due to his lack of science understanding we as a society have to make decisions based on facts and our own research gathered from real scientists.

This happens to be the most common mistake around the world when it comes to facts. (I too found those numbers that you provided) What you provided is fact, but what I can tell you is that land ice and sea ice are two completely different entities. Those who deny or question global warming love to pull out the data that the sea ice has increased and there is more of it and so forth. But when you look at the data, sea ice is the worst representation of ice caps melting and global warming is not happening. This is like you having a glass of water and the very top of the water is frozen and then trying to tell people that rest of the glass is also frozen. Sea ice is at best a few meters thick, land ice which is the real concern, is kilometers thick. All sea ice represents is the fact that there are seasons that occur in Antarctica. Another thing that I would like to point out is that whenever these data graphics and sheets come out it is always in the same period of time. Why is this? Cause these is when the northern and westerly winds play a huge factor in being able to freeze the very top of the water.

Most people have this misconception that cause the earth is warming or in your case "might be warming" the earth is never allowed to have snow or get cold anywhere. This is simply not true, first off weather and climate are once again two different entities just like sea and land ice. On top of that, a matter of just one degree can change matter; it is the difference between ice and water. Due to this, just a simple increase of 2 or even 1 degrees in temperature can have dramatic effects in the whole world.

Sources for sea ice vs land ice:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/glo...ctually-increase-antarctic-sea-ice-150731.htm

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/11/loss-of-land-ice-not-sea-ice-more-sea-level-rise/

Fun Fact; the same website (NSIDC which is a website that is very well respected) in which you got your numbers also has a section in their "Frequently Asked Questions on Arctic sea ice all" about global warming and why sea ice as nothing to do with global warming, and that global warming is real and ever present factor. So please, try not to cherry pick information that has nothing to do with your case.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

 

Sea ice was/is a main ingredient that warmers use to promote AGW. It no longer fits the narrative. According to warmers, everything is caused by GW. Mild winters = GW. Frigid winters = GW. Hurricanes = GW. No hurricanes = GW, etc.
You completely ignore the many studies that show no increase over the last 15 years. What is the ideal climate that the planet, according to warmers, is not allowed to vary from? The planet's climate will change without your permission. It's cyclical. Why do warmers feel they need to ramp up the doom and gloom scenarios like a fire and brimstone preacher? Because it's the new religion.
There was a prediction that we would have more frequent and more violent hurricanes and that didn't pan out so the warmers now claim that El Nino is responsible for that failed prediction. A prediction made on computer models. But we've known about El Nino for a long time. Why wasn't El Nino not included in the computer models that warmers claim as their bible?

 

I am not ignoring anything. Actually you are, this whole idea that sea ice is main ingredient is wrong. This is pointed out in the links I provided (clearly ignored on your part). They speak clearly about the difference about sea and land ice. Again these links talk about the "many studies" which you have not provided about the last 15 years and why they are wrong or have nothing to do with global warming. I am pretty sure you at out all people ignored everything that I wrote and did not read the links I provided. Just like you posted in a different thread, "You can't post an article and the change the facts of that article to suit your narrative". This is what you are doing, I provide facts from a highly respected source, a source that you used yourself, and yet you have no comment about this nor do you look at the facts. And yet you use the same sources as me but cherry pick information.

Where are all the scientists that are credible with information that the NSIDIC or NASA or many of the other agencies are wrong about sea ice?

 

If science were settled we would be as advanced as we can be and there would be no need for further research

- - - Updated - - -

How about its been changing for billions of years and Its seen far more than we have now

 

Yup its only changed since we started using fossil fuels, Get real

 

I wonder if any of the taxes they paid went to global warming research paid for by the government

Exxon Income tax expense: $31.0 billion

 

And you do what all you warmers do - refuse to answer questions.

 

I refuse to answer questions? Alright let me answer your questions that have nothing to do with global warming. Since you seem to ignore the overwhelming proof I have provided while your whole arguments foundation is based on your word with zero empirical evidence. Yes the planets climate will change, no one is arguing that it wont, those who look at the science can see that CO2 emissions are causing it to occur faster and we will warm our planet to a higher temperature. It does not take anyone with a Ph.D to understand that CO2 will raise temperatures. "Warmers" do not feel as though they need to ramp up the doom, they are simply letting the world know what can and ultimately will happen once the ice caps melt and how we are not going to be able to turn the clock back. Furthermore it is not the new religion, cause religion works off of a model of no science, while 'warmers" use science and nature to let them know that what they are testing and studying is in fact correct. And lastly, we come to El Nino. I am not sure where you get your information from (most likely the same place that you get sea ice has everything to due with global warming), but I would like to see the information that we have known for so long about El Nino.


Since all the readings I have posted seem either to difficult for you to read or you just simply do not want to view them cause you know that you will be proven wrong

Here is a video that you can watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE1yQz_VJHc

Like I stated before all your arguments rest on the following 1) Cherry picked information 2.) Information that does not relate to Global Warming in the least bit 3.) Not responding to any of my provided links or any questions that I pose 4.) You have zero counter statements 5.) A lack of general understanding on how to form an argument. You started off slightly strong with providing some factual information; but then it went all down hill from there cause that information had nothing to do with anything. Then you completely ignored one my posts going through step by step why that had nothing to do with global warming and then refused to read anything I provided, no wonder you do not see the light that is global warming. You refuse to have an open mind and an open debate, you realized you had no information and then it turn to out right nonsense talk and then trying to point fingers at me saying I ignore the "facts" and refuse to answer questions.

You are the one that does not listen and just throws around made up information about nothing.

 

Gosh, I guess the billions of dollars spent by government never has any effect whatsoever.

Update: Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’

 

Come on Hoosier, you can do better than that. Revealing that you get your info from Morano's website doesn't bolster your proposition that you are interested in the science. Morano is a political hack with a BS in political sciences, who peddles himself as an expert in climate sciences. You won't find anyone more biased than him.

The AGW opponents don't do themselves any favors by associating with people like Morano or Watts.

 

Thank you for making my point. I now give the 9/11truthers more credence.

 

I know, I know, no outlet that reports what is going on that is not approved by consensus politics is to be listened to. No proof needed to dismiss using logical fallacies. One of the problems with claims like yours is that you cannot back them up with proof, just other allegations by warmists. Oh, and no warmist getting their salary based on government grants is to be suspect because, well, after all....government and appeal to authority.

 

Not so. If I would cite dailykos or Huffpost as sources, you could call me out on it, and rightly so.

Morano is just a huge hypocrite, because he criticizes scientists for actually making a salary from grants (not uncommon in the sciences, because the public wants the sciences to be run like a business, rather than an ubiased acquisition tool of knowledge). At the same time, he doesn't state his funding sources. I am guessing that he makes a lot more than the people he criticizes by peddling his pseudo science.

I am calling you out because I feel that you actually do have a good understanding of numbers and concepts, as indicated in some of our previous discussions, but you let the partisanship steam up your view, by giving hacks like Morano credence.

Look, if I would like to get info on the latest cancer research, would I trust a political science major to provide that info? No, I wouldn't, I would rather listen to an expert in cancer research. However, hacks like Morano think that they have some sort of understanding of climate science, when he probably doesn't even know the difference between heat and temperature.

I just challenge you to look at the real science, and not politicized websites that play into the denier's beliefs, making a boatload of money from it.

 

Lots of real science on WUWT that you summarily dismiss. Lots of scientists now have their own blogs also due to the unofficial blacklisting in peer review and many of these scientists are summarily dismissed by the political consensus crowd.

If you look at the science, then you would know how bad it really is, how spotty some of the data is, and how it is often distorted by only a few politically involved scientists like Mann and also media and government. When the President stands in front of the country and spouts claims that have no actual standing in observed science then we have a problem Houston.

I also find it funny that the warmist crowd often complain about the relative pittance of private money in climate science but have no problem with the billions poured in by government. They also never prove their claims which is par for the course.

Climate science is an immature science and yet policy is being based on claims that cannot be tested, computer projections that cannot be validated, and so far have proven to be lacking in observational proof except when they fiddle with the underlying data to make it come closer to the model output like the questionable Karl et. al. paper which the NCDC/NOAA latched onto like the IPCC did with Mann's Hockey Stick.

 

rationalwiki as some kind of news source? You realize it's just another kook blog that agrees with you right? Some folks will believe anything.

 

Stay in denial then.

 

Beats the crap out of the Daily Fail

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

 

Oh! Dear! And here I was thinking that the having to change your underwear yourself instead of just waiting for them to change by themselves was not news

So, please tell me what is driving THIS change

 

That's the beauty of the United States, folks can believe what ever stupid crap they want to.

 

Which is why so many live in blissful ignorance denying what is plain to see

 

The original sources and corrections are there for you to research.

 

Utter nonsense. Most scientists are employed either in industry or in education-usually universities. They therefore have regular salaries and may receive research grants over and above their normal pay. Unless, of course, you believe they just sit around waiting for the next grant cheque to come along?

 

Actually there is; remember the Montreal Protocol which was put in place to counteract the very real threat of climate change due to the unrestricted use of CFC? These chemicals caused a measurable hole in our protective ozone layer which, if we had not addressed it, could have had disastrous effects-a huge increase in skin cancers, drastic imbalances in the marine food chain and global crop failures. We caused the hole, we did something about it and the hole is now healing. Cause and effect in action.

 

You accuse scientists of politicizing and peer review for supposed blacklisting, but then you get your info from sources that don't even have peer review process and that are there for the sole purpose to deny the AGW evidence.

Let's see who I trust more:
Peer reviewed academic journals who have a editorial board for everyone to see, publishing papers that have to adhere to standards and use the scientific method
or
a political science major hack who maintains a non-reviewed blog that looks sensationalized and unprofessional, whose sole purpose is to obfuscate the AGW discussion?

You just have to look at Watts' new climate journal: http://theoas.org/publishing/

Where is the editorial board? Who's the editor in chief? Where is the list of academic standards that must be fulfilled for publication? There are none. That's why no self-respecting scientist would ever publish there in fear of a career-ending move. But, he'll target the suckers who are wiling to give money to the journal (and him), probably selecting the "articles" that fit his agenda.

Look, I have said many times before that I don't have skin in this game, since I don't believe in policy response to AGW (except maybe for incentivizing the conservation of fossil fuels). However, I call out hacks when I see them, and Watts and consorts are hacks. If you believe in their nonsense, then you credibility in advocating for the scientific method is seriously undermined.

 

I tell you why the concerted response to CFC was not a problem: Because it hurt only fringe industry and we had a readily available and cheap replacement for CFCs. A potential AGW response targets our fossil fuel based, wasteful lifestyle at the very heart. That's why nothing will be done, no matter what the evidence or consequences.

We are addicted to fossil fuels, and that addiction is very hard to break.