Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
Post Reply
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:58 pm

Climate Desk Live 1/28/13: Can Greenland Be Saved?

The writing is on the wall—Greenland is melting, and faster than expected, due to climate change. If it fully melts, it will raise global sea levels by seven meters, leading to even more dramatic losses of coastal land around the world, including in many major cities.

http://m.motherjones.com/climate-desk-l ... d-be-saved
[When and why was it named 'Greenland' and what were the CO2 ppm levels when it was named?]


Greenland’s Ice Sheet More Stable Than Once Believed
Published: January 23rd, 2013

The enormous sheets of ice that lie atop Greenland may not be as prone to catastrophic melting as many scientists thought, even if the planet continues to warm and temperatures remain high for hundreds of years....

. . .

That’s the conclusion of scientists who have been drilling deep into the Greenland ice sheet since 2007, in a Danish-led project known as the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM). Their results, published Wednesday in a landmark paper in Nature, show that temperatures rose some 8°C (14.5°F) higher than they are today during the so-called Eemian period, a stretch of natural global warming that occurred between about 115,000 and 130,000 years ago.
[How could Greenland have warmed 14.5°F when CO2 levels were way below the 'safe' level of 350 ppm?]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/gree ... site-15500
(Rockefeller money helps fund ClimateCentral)

"The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9047642]
(Rockefeller (and Soros) money helps fund NPR)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Fordama » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:21 pm

Your lack of understanding of science is mind boggling.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:29 pm

Skeptics are generally more knowledgable on climate change than believers.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24537
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Wabash » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:33 pm

kramer wrote:Skeptics are generally more knowledgable on climate change than believers.
Especially the believers that are skeptics of the science skeptics.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:17 am

Wabash wrote: Especially the believers that are skeptics of the science skeptics.
I can produce a science paper (that may have even been pal peer reviewed) that says climate skeptics are generally more knowledgeable on climate science than you believers.

Can you produce a science paper that backs up your petty claim?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:23 am

kramer wrote:Skeptics are generally more knowledgable on climate change than believers.
Mind boggling, I say.

By the way, you aren't a skeptic, you are a denialist. Big difference.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24537
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Wabash » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:00 am

kramer wrote:
I can produce a science paper (that may have even been pal peer reviewed) that says climate skeptics are generally more knowledgeable on climate science than you believers.

Can you produce a science paper that backs up your petty claim?
Clearly the humor was lost on you.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Parrotpaul » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:27 am

With all due respect to kramer...he will see the humor no later than Monday next...and he will acknowledge that.
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:02 am

Fordama wrote: Mind boggling, I say.

By the way, you aren't a skeptic, you are a denialist. Big difference.

Fordama
This is exactly how I feel:
Definition of SKEPTICISM

1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism


skep·tic (US) or Brit scep·tic /ˈskɛptɪk/ noun
plural skep·tics
[count] : a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement)


And here's the definition of deny:
Definition of DENY

1
: to declare untrue <deny an allegation>
2
: to refuse to admit or acknowledge : disavow <deny responsibility>

Have I said that humans aren't causing AGW? No. But I question (i.e. doubt, therefore I'm skeptical) the claims that all of the warming is from the additional plant and tree fertilizer that we put in the air.


You still 'educating' kids?...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:32 am

I got it a while ago--you don't get skepticism. That's why you have to go to the dictionary that doesn't deal with the philosophy of skepticism.

Here's some info on denialism--

Denialism is a process that employs
some or all of five characteristic
elements in a concerted way. The first
is the identification of conspiracies.
When the overwhelming body of scientific
opinion believes that something is
true, it is argued that this is not because
those scientists have independently
studied the evidence and reached the
same conclusion...
Definitely a kramerism.

The second is the use of fake experts.
These are individuals who purport to be
experts in a particular area but whose
views are entirely inconsistent with
established knowledge..
Kind of a Kramerism. You like to portray journalists as the experts.


The third characteristic is selectivity,
drawing on isolated papers that challenge
the dominant consensus or highlighting
the flaws in the weakest papers
among those that support it as a means
of discrediting the entire field...

This one is your bread and butter. It's Krameristic!



The fourth is the creation of impossible
expectations of what research can
deliver. For example, those denying
the reality of climate change point to
the absence of accurate temperature
records from before the invention of
the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic
uncertainty of mathematical models
to reject them entirely as a means of
understanding a phenomenon.

Another staple of your postings.


The fifth is the use of misrepresentation
and logical fallacies.

You often do this one by accident by introducing articles from where you cherry pick one item and gloss over that the entire article contradicts some other position you brought in from another. Unintentional red herrings.


This is from a viewpoint piece from the European Journal of Public Health.
[url]http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... ll.pdf[url]
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:40 am

I got it a while ago--you don't get skepticism. That's why you have to go to the dictionary that doesn't deal with the philosophy of skepticism.

Here's some info on denialism--

Denialism is a process that employs
some or all of five characteristic
elements in a concerted way. The first
is the identification of conspiracies.
When the overwhelming body of scientific
opinion believes that something is
true, it is argued that this is not because
those scientists have independently
studied the evidence and reached the
same conclusion...
Definitely a kramerism.

The second is the use of fake experts.
These are individuals who purport to be
experts in a particular area but whose
views are entirely inconsistent with
established knowledge..
Kind of a Kramerism. You like to portray journalists as the experts.


The third characteristic is selectivity,
drawing on isolated papers that challenge
the dominant consensus or highlighting
the flaws in the weakest papers
among those that support it as a means
of discrediting the entire field...

This one is your bread and butter. It's Krameristic!



The fourth is the creation of impossible
expectations of what research can
deliver. For example, those denying
the reality of climate change point to
the absence of accurate temperature
records from before the invention of
the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic
uncertainty of mathematical models
to reject them entirely as a means of
understanding a phenomenon.

Another staple of your postings.


The fifth is the use of misrepresentation
and logical fallacies.

You often do this one by accident by introducing articles from where you cherry pick one item and gloss over that the entire article contradicts some other position you brought in from another. Unintentional red herrings.


This is from a viewpoint piece from the European Journal of Public Health.
[url]http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... ll.pdf[url]
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Parrotpaul » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:16 pm

Thanks for that, Ford...it is informative and interesting.
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:32 pm

Fordama wrote:I got it a while ago--you don't get skepticism. That's why you have to go to the dictionary that doesn't deal with the philosophy of skepticism.
I question and doubt the claims that humans are the reason for the recent warming as well as many of their other claims. That's the definition of skepticism and that's why I posted those two links so that you can understand the differences.


Fordama wrote:Here's some info on denialism--

Denialism is a process that employs
some or all of five characteristic
elements in a concerted way. The first
is the identification of conspiracies.
When the overwhelming body of scientific
opinion believes that something is
true, it is argued that this is not because
those scientists have independently
studied the evidence and reached the
same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.
Definitely a kramerism.
I added the part you left out (looks like [you cherry picked…) and highlighted it in red.

I've argued that climate scientists are engaging "in a complex and secretive conspiracy?" Show me 3 examples.

I've pointed out that scientists have done things like refuse FOI requests, delete emails that were asked for in FOI requests, lost or refused to give out raw data, adjust (and re-adjust) data in a way so that the older data is cooled and the newer data is warmed and, pointed out that Senator Inhofe has on his website a link that shows a climate scientist saying we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

Pointing out the above documented facts often results in the conspiracy card.


Fordama wrote: The second is the use of fake experts.
These are individuals who purport to be
experts in a particular area but whose
views are entirely inconsistent with
established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974, when a senior executive with R J Reynolds devised a system to score scientists working on tobacco in relation to the extent to which they were suppor- tive of the industry’s position.

. . .

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed a Global Climate Science Communications Plan, involving the recruitment of ‘scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science [who can] help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on green- house gases.
Kind of a Kramerism. You like to portray journalists as the experts.

Your source says that the API developed a plan to recruit scientists to convince journalists. Most of the news articles I use are from left-wing sources. Sounds as if you're claiming that these left wing sources are under the influence of big oil.

And for the record, the climategate emails show that journalists (from the MSM) have been in email communication with these scientists. Don't you think they know what they are writing? For example, here's one from "fair and balanced" Revkin of the NYTimes:
Out to put the non-warming “in context” he writes Phil Jones:
As you all are aware, a very vocal and plugged-in crew has been making much of the recent downturn in temps. Because the ‘Average Joe’ out there is only hearing radio soundbites about the sun turning off, or cable-news coverage or some stray TV image of snow in baghdad (and particularly with a big ‘skeptics conference’ coming next week), I think it’s important to do a story putting a cold stretch in context against the evidence for the long-term warming trajectory from greenhouse forcing.Would need input from you by end of Thursday ideally. [Emphasis added]
...
3) Do you see ANY evidence of solar activity playing a role, either background or foreground?
4) Presumably global HEATING is continuing apace, even as global TEMP fluctuates. Is that right...
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/24/clima ... e-control/
Fordama wrote: The third characteristic is selectivity,
drawing on isolated papers that challenge
the dominant consensus or highlighting
the flaws in the weakest papers
among those that support it as a means
of discrediting the entire field...

This one is your bread and butter. It's Krameristic!
I bet dollars to doughnuts that if you do a search on all that I've posted, the vast majority of them are from non-isolated science or MSM sources. And in fact, my bread and butter is pointing out the flaws in the science from these non-isolated science and MSM articles and papers.


Fordama wrote: The fourth is the creation of impossible
expectations of what research can
deliver. For example, those denying
the reality of climate change point to
the absence of accurate temperature
records from before the invention of
the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic
uncertainty of mathematical models
to reject them entirely as a means of
understanding a phenomenon.

Another staple of your postings.
I have never questioned the claim of climate change because there were no thermometers in earlier times. In fact, I just posted a GISP2 graph that shows Greenland was much warmer when CO2 was much lower and it was based on ice core data.

The models also aren't very good. James Hansen recently said as much.


Fordama wrote: The fifth is the use of misrepresentation
and logical fallacies.

You often do this one by accident by introducing articles from where you cherry pick one item and gloss over that the entire article contradicts some other position you brought in from another. Unintentional red herrings.
So what? If one article says one thing on a particular topic and another article says something different on the same topic, what's wrong with pointing out the "settled science?"
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:08 pm

Now you are denying your own denialism. You've gone so far overboard that you can't recognize yourself.

Fordama

Just for fun...

Image
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:26 am

Fordama wrote:Now you are denying your own denialism. You've gone so far overboard that you can't recognize yourself.

Fordama
Interesting non-reply.

Could it be more proof that us skeptics know more on this topic than you believers?...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Fordama » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:31 am

kramer wrote:
Interesting non-reply.

Could it be more proof that us skeptics know more on this topic than you believers?...
It could be except that you don't understand the philosophy of skepticism. Science, skepticism--learn them, love them, be them.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:51 pm

Fordama wrote: It could be except that you don't understand the philosophy of skepticism.
I understand the difference between denying something and questioning something.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by Fordama » Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:25 pm

kramer wrote:
I understand the difference between denying something and questioning something.
Mm, no, you don't.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Settled Science: Can "more stable" Greenland "be saved?"

Post by kramer » Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:03 pm

Fordama wrote:Mm, no, you don't.

Fordama
Mm, yes I do.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Post Reply