Skeptics, what's the argument on this: New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014

a) not happening

b) natural cycle

c) not happening, but if it does (which means we were wrong on that), it's still a natural cycle (trust us we're not wrong on this one)

This, in particular, is an extraordinarily damning e-mail

You are wrong. Are you saying the meteorological organizations that had been gathering the data for decades just destroyed it after they gave a copy to CRU? Speaking of not thinking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...Age_of_Stupid/

Don't know if iPlayer works outside the UK but this is worth a watch.
The near future backdrop is cheesy, but the impact that energy production is having is borne out.

According to Al Gore, the debate is over. No ifs, ands, or buts. Don't worry about all the shady stuff going on with data manipulation and concealment. Don't worry about all the highly intelligent and well educated scientists that may disagree. Just keep sending him money so he can make millions while he flies all over the world and buys SUV's for his staff, so that he can make more millions making speeches, movies, selling books, and television appearances.

Please post these "highly intelligent and well educated scientists that may disagree" so we can discuss their qualifications and arguments. Not that it matters because you won't listen. But it makes us feel better and sharpens our arguments. If my aunts and uncles try to bring up global warming, healthcare or Amanda Knox over Xmas - they won't know what hit them.

I agree...it is damning...
When you combine this email with the loss/destruction of the raw temp station data at CRU and you have the building blocks of a criminal conspiracy by CRU/IPCC scientists...

There is plenty of incompetance at CRU but I do not believe they were dumb enough to accidently lose/destroy their raw temp data. No one can be that stupid... If anything, they would have multiple backups of this data.

The surface temp station data has been in a huge mess for years. I have cited evidence this data is hopelessly corrupted and should be completely thrown out. I suspect CRU played unethical games with the raw data to get the results that they wanted and when they couldn't dodge the FOIA requests anymore they destroy the raw data leaving themselves the only processed data. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils. Be exposed as frauds or be exposed as fools that lost/destroyed billions of dollars of raw data... The lack of shame for the loss/destruction of the raw data speaks volumes to me about CRU and cast doubts on the sincerity of their missing raw data story...

d. Crap...
The computer models also claim that the upper atmosphere should be cooling underneath the blanket of man-made CO2 we emit...and the temp there is <drumroll> rising. Oooops... The only decent data we have (and it is somewhat flawed) is our satellite temp data. According to the satellite data, we have been flatlining/cooling since 1998. I can cite articles where climate "scientists" predict another 10 years of cooling...

After a while of seeing their numerous screw-ups, you got to realize these global warming scientists are a bunch of clowns... In the acedemic world, there is a heirarchy of scientists. It is pretty much universal that people in hard sciences look down upon those in soft sciences like psychology... Even the psychologists look down upon global warming scientists. Even those in Political Sciences look down upon global warming scientists. If the branches of sciences were Corleone brothers....Climate Warming Scientists would be the Fredos of scientists...

Mother nature weilds a big stick. She has given us ice ages where parts of Europe/USA were covered in over a mile of ice and heat waves that were warming than today. The last great warming period was the Medieval Warming Period... The artic ice will grow/recede at her descretion... BTW my understanding is 90% of the world's ice is in Antartica... If Antartica starts melting then wake me up....instead it has been growing.

There is no consensus of AGW...

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616db87e6

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/...nged_by_sc.php

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...1-5c755457a8af

So by your ommission, do you now concede CRU's story they lost/destroyed the raw temp station data?

As for other back-up sources for this data no one has shown me any evidence this data can be obtain from other sources and piece back togther...not even you. I would have thought that billions of dollars of tax-paid raw temp station data on which the future of all human life depended upon would have had multiple backup copies. But if we believe CRU's story...then this was not the case... I don't believe CRU's story. I think the loss/destruction of this data was on purpose to avoid embarassment from a FOIA request they could no longer dodge...

But I hope you are correct that this data can be pieced back together. There are a lot of people in CRU that are fearful that it may. But where does this discussion get us?

My whole purpose of this topic was to show CRU as either a criminal entity or at best a criminally-stupid entity.
Neither possibility you can refute...

Slides 26 and 27 of this presentation I got to hear this weekend seem to disagree.

A bunch of rightwing sources say there's no consensus, so it must be true.

Meanwhile, every scientific organization that studies the climate has issued a statement in support of the science of AGW, including the national academies of science of 32 countries, including every G8 nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

Sorry bloggers, random corporate shills and sci-fi writers don't count. People still think the earth is flat. That doesn't mean there is a legitimate debate on the subject.

Rightwing?
Your rebuttal is quite pathetic... You can't refute these sources so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

You're a true believer.
You just convince me that reason and evidence are wasted on you.

I'd recommend William Ruddiman's Plows, Plagues and Petroleum. He contends that human intervention in global climatology actually began 8,000 years or so ago due to humans shifting to agriculture as a main means of subsistence.

According the thesis, methane and increased co2 output, even in the early stages of agricultural, made a measurable difference in contributing to warming, enough to help stave off the predictable cycle of cooling that we should be experiencing now, based on the Milankovich cycle and other predictable orbital cycles that have traditionally governed ice age commencement.

It's a pretty well thought out and interesting book, although he's catching a lot of resistance in scientific circles.

Wiki? LOL....wiki is a highly political source.
I stop reading at the word "every"... Perhaps "every" entity that receives govt grants for AGW believes this...

There is a long list of well educated and well qualified sceptics. Even the non-PhD Stephen McIntyre has been running circles around the fools at GISS. He alone exposed their errors making them change their temp records to that 1934 was the hottest year not 1998. An McIntyre is a mere amateur mathematician who has outwitted the so called experts at GISS mutliple times...

One of my sources cites 9000+ PhDs.... And they're all shills for corporations? Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge for AGW true believers who don't have an answer... It just shows how weak you are... You have convinced me as well that you can't be reasoned with so I'll no longer try to...

Great....another unproven hypothesis to go over. No thanks...
Hypotheses are a dime-a-dozen. AGW hypotheses are a penny-a-dozen.
There are other books I'd rather read...

I'll stick with lampooning the AGW hypothesis...

Refute what exactly? That a bunch of people signed a petition? I suppose that all the climate scientists have parked their gold plated jaguars on the research that disproves AGW and are busy emailing each other about their huge success. It's obviously a vast conspiracy that none of those scientists you point to can get anything published.

If you can't tell there's a difference between a senate committee and the National Academies of Science, then you deserve your own ignorance.

YOU CITED A SENATE MINORITY COMMITTEE FFS!

Cognitive dissonance itt.

Give me one other reputable science organization that isn't on board with the IPCC statement. One. Oh I know, grant money conspiracy.


On the 9k PhD thing:

http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php

Ok I have a BS in physics. Which would allow me to sign this. And I don't know **** about AGW from an actual science POV. It's irresponsible to count BSs.

So we know off the bat this isn't exactly a survey of real scientists who matter in the field. And that they're doing everything they can to boost their numbers.

Also they don't really break down what fields the PhD's are in. Notice how few people in atmospheric science relatively. Do we know if any of those are PhDs, or just local weathermen? I'd really like to see some investigation and follow up done on the people who signed this and their credentials.

Also this thing was sent out to National Academy of Sciences mailing list, and meant to look like an official NAS mailing. The NAS has only 2100 actual members. So I'm not sure who's on their mailing list but it's a lot more than just the accredited recognized scientists that are in the actual organization.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12


LOOOL so to summarize - Robinson sends out a one-sided petition card (IE - there was no other choice) with a 12-page document denying AGW. He lets people pass the petition cards out to whomever they please (literally could know less about AGW than any of us), does questionable verification on credentials or even the signer's identity (many non-existent people have slipped through so far) - and we have no idea how many scientists did not return their cards.

You might get a better response than that if you asked people if they believed we never went to the moon.

Yeah, consensus busted.


It's really exhausting and discouraging putting out the time and effort to tear into your denier FUD one item after another. Because you never stop coming with it, never admit you're wrong, never back down, and just ignore anything you don't want to hear. Oh wait last 10 FUD items basically discredited? (meaning any rational impartial observer would think so, and on some level even you must get it because you stop coming with it) No worries, we so no pattern here - we have the memory of a goldfish when we want to on some issues, and an elephant on others. Hah, here's FUD item #11!!! You work on refuting that while I go look for FUD #12.

Endless supply of FUD is a pretty powerful weapon, I will admit. I guess the hope is that lurkers on the fence are reading this as I'm convinced not one skeptic will ever change his mind until bad things start happening, and even then probably not. I'm starting to understand more and more how legitimate scientists feel on this issue. It's draining and disheartening.

Here is NSIDC
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.p...arminghoax.com

which shows a 40% increase in Antartic Ice from 1980-2009
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...mment.news.109
Your graph selects 1957 as a start year.... I wonder what the results would be if we chose 1947?

But we need to ask ourselves what does this prove whether ice grows or it melts?
From a climate view we just left a Little Ice age which ended in 1850.
We should expect some natural warming. The AGW alarmists love to use anecdoctal evidence. They crow when Artic ice retreats while remaining mute when Antartic ice grows... I just demand consistency on their part and to refrain from cherry picking...

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

pretty interesting article. 100 reasons why global warming isnt caused by man.

Wow that takes endless parade of FUD to a whole new level. Well done.

This is reason #2? Wtf does this even mean or have anything to do with whether or not the current levels of CO2 are capable of causing significant warming? This article is a complete joke. Bring on FUD #12089278.

It must be a blast to do science like this. Just keep flinging feces at your opponent to see if it sticks. If not, no big deal, doesn't affect the skeptic community credibility one bit that this denier was completely wrong, we'll just move on to the next contestant. Whereas if one AGW scientist makes a mistake that's it, time to lose faith in the entire scientific community.

This whole debate would be a pretty hilarious joke if there wasn't so much at stake. Our grandkids will probably look back on us and shake their heads, the way we look at the Easter Islanders who cut down all their trees. But then a large enough subset of the populace won't have any sense of history, and it will happen all over again with some new environmental issue.

Let's try and clear up one misconception, and in so doing, test whether the skeptics in this thread properly apply the scientific method, or are just idiots

The Vostok ice core data in no way demonstrates that CO2 cannot be the cause of AGW. Some here have claimed these data show that CO2 increases lag warming phases, so CO2 obviously cannot be the culprit.

This is just drivel. As is easily seen by reading the ACTUAL PAPER THE ****ING RESULTS WERE PUBLISHED IN. This one, in other words:

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...lonTermIII.pdf

(or you an get it off the Science website if you have a subscription).

Most importantly, read the damn thing ALL THE WAY THROUGH. In particular, I draw your attention to page 1730, right column, paragraph starting 'We confirm the close correlation...' - reading this paragraph ALL THE WAY THROUGH, and especially reading the last half of it in the context of the first half, should clear everything up.

Lol.

"Ma'am, your son didn't die of alcohol poisoning because the 0.75 BAC is only 0.00022 percent of the alcohol he has consumed in his lifetime. His death was a naturally occurring event. Deaths have occurred throughout geologic time. Also, the sun could have killed him."

How stupid is your list of 100 when you completely **** up your credibility by item #2?