by the way GT....are these some of the same scientists who have assured us that temperatures would be far higher in 2008? are they some of the same ones who seemed taken off guard when we determined that we are now entering a period of 10 years of cooling?
so no accountability....that's what i thought. well, let's have this conversation again over the coming months.......by the way, do you know which year is the highest year on record globally?
For my thousandth post, I say: still ********. We have to admit, though, that what these arguments lack in ability to interpret facts and data (or perhaps intellectual honesty) is more than offset by tenacity in pushing a bankrupt anti-science agenda clothed in selective presentation of a very limited data set taken completely out of context.
more ad hominem steinbeck? i am shocked.....do you just not know how to argue any actual points? is that why all you have is one logical fallacy after another? i think you will do well to continue allowing others to tell you what you ought to believe. for the record, i have been fairly outspoken about my belief that the earth is a few billion years old......
Dude, if it's so important for you to have the last word, pretty much everybody has conceded you that. Please post one more time, close this ******** out, and move on. We all know who believes what, so just let the thread die.
Stephen McIntyre has a BS in mathematics. He's been CEO of Northwest Explorations, Inc and was advisor to CGX Energy. He's a tad bit biased and he is by no means a climate scientist.
At the risk of interfering with an enjoyable argument, may I point out that this particular incarnation of the GW/CC thread saga is ostensibly regarding (especially northern polar sea) ice and the degree of melt this year. For all mop's proclivity to irritate those inclined to trust more specialized climatologists, his posts of ice extent data are dead on topic. No data point reveals a trend, and no trend alone answers deep questions, but recent degrees of melt are stronger evidence against the feared positive feedback between temperature and (decreased) albedo than for it.
mop is definitely NOT on topic. The topic is Arctic ice AND the big picture. If the topic doesn't include the big picture, then it's just Arctic ice, not Arctic ice vis-a-vis Antarctic ice. mop selectively uses data points, twists them around until their heads pop off, and utterly ignores the big picture here. His interpretation is laughably flawed and utterly ridiculous. His approach is classic obfuscation and one that Exxon and its think tanks, Fox News, and others have used to incredible success because most reasonable folks are loathe to appear intolerant and close-minded for calling it what it is: ********. This thread is walking, talking ********. Let it die. It's ********. If I haven't made myself clear, it's ********. If you need a link, here's one: ********
This thread started off in the OP with an apparent challenge to mop to refute that arctic ice was potentially plummeting to the point of disappearing.
Sorry; I disagree. The OP was a question specifically about Arctic ice (and, IMO, the big picture), not Antarctic ice. mop is using Antarctic ice to refute the Arctic issue AND the climate change issue, both of which are flawed approaches -- at best. As for your thoughts on what a good scientist would do, you've surely been paying attention to discussion in the scientific community about how to deal with these issues and whether science should take a more active role in debunking this stuff. That's the whole point of things like realscience.com Is your take that we should continue to listen politely and endlessly to all argument, regardless of whether it's already failed the test of good science, instead of moving on to more valuable pursuits? Largely based on such an approach, Exxon and its think tanks, among others, have kept public understanding of this issue from allowing us to move forward. Anyone can sit and post interesting-looking but ultimately bankrupt links all day, which is what mop does. But there's no substance to it, as you no doubt realize. Why the hell should I take it seriously? I work with scientists all day (and, technically, I am one -- albeit a "social scientist.") Just about all of them have the word "********" in their vocabularies, even if they use it mostly in private. I simply believe they should put it into greater use instead of waffling around with scientific language that ultimately says the same thing. Whether it's multiple IPCC reports or a single word, we're telling mop the same thing. It's too bad he won't listen.
Science magazine, if one searches on "climate", has 30 some-odd article hits in the past three weeks. But they probably won't make the blogosphere, where everyone is an expert. In fact I doubt more than two people from this whole thread will ever bother reading them.
Following up claims on this thread actually motivated me to register for their online articles. I can't access everything without a paid subscription, of course, but what a wealth of interesting stuff.
If one is a member of the UT community, i.e., behind an EID, or accessing from UT, one has free access. Also, most libraries allow it. I wish the general public could, too, but oh well.
pmg...you made my point all the while acting as if you were disagreeing. my point is that the raw data shows something different than the original article claimed and than alarmists are saying. meaning that a thinking person would need to respond to something like that. it is not arrogant to say that if i bring good cause to doubt the status quo, a thinking person should respond. that doesn't make me anything except someone who questions. anyone could find the stuff i find and have legitimate questions. having said that.....this graph does alarm me a bit: northern ice anomalies but only if one assumes that ice should remain constant. it wold alarm me more if the south pole wasn't growing enough to offset this considerably.
excellent rhetoric......and yet you have once again said nothing apart from assuring me that you could say something if you really wanted to. in the mean time.....steve Mc Intyre over at climate audit had this update on the actual topic at hand: Day 189 Race Report 2008 lost a little ground to both 2007 and 2006 in day 189 with another day off the clock. About 630,000 sq km behind, which would be a seemingly insurmountable 10 days at present melt rates. Plus 2007 is going into a pretty strong week - with 4 straight plus 100,000 days coming up (of which there have been none so far in 2008.) My guess (And it’s only a guess) is that 2008 will not be able to gain any ground in the next 4 days - more likely to lose some ground. It might even have to look over its shoulder at 2003, which is closer to 2008 than 2008 is to 2007. month day year ice dd diff 7 9 2002 9.454688 189 -0.047500 7 9 2003 9.425938 189 -0.064218 7 8 2004 9.596406 189 -0.059063 7 9 2005 8.847813 189 -0.057656 7 9 2006 8.456719 189 -0.101875 7 9 2007 8.369063 189 -0.085937 7 8 2008 9.032500 189 -0.061563 sorry, but it just looks like since this thread started, the original claim is looking more and more unlikely (despite all the rhetoric). by the way steinbeck......do actual facts and what is happening in the real world matter to you at all? or are you such a postmodern deconstructionist that you are more concerned with rhetoric than reality?
One more time - Stephen McIntyre has a BS in mathematics. He's been CEO of Northwest Explorations, Inc and was advisor to CGX Energy. He has no training in climate science and his resume would suggest that he may be biased on this issue. Why would anyone give credence to McIntyre's interpretation of this data? McIntyre and MOP have every right to their opinion, but an intelligent reader will be very skeptical of their interpretations and conclusions.
Help me out here. It appears all that McIntyre is doing is listing the data. Mop is linking to the data and not to Mc's interpretation. All Mc needs is a GED to be able to post data and chart it. I don't see why I'm supposed to dismiss him off hand when all he does is post data. Are ya'll saying that the data points themselves are off?? Or that any interpretation of said data is wrong??
Steinbeck and GTWT might be right about climate change. After all, most of the Climate scientists agree with them. There is something to be said for that. I don't think we'll really know for a few years. On the topic of this thread however Mop is posting actual data related to the topic of the thread and Steinbeck and GTWT sound like petulant children. I don't really have an opinion on this, which is why I read these threads. I try to learn something since I'm not a scientist. I'm a pretty smart guy, though, and if I were completely ignorant on this topic I would think Mop was doing very good job of making his point and others were coming of as demogogues. But since Mop is obviously wrong, we can just dismiss his data with snarky laughter.
steinbeck is using the classic argument from authority fallacy. he has yet to post anything worth much on this entire thread....but he assures me over and over that "if he wanted to he could" or "if you were in my class i woudl fail you." etc etc. pretty meaningless when he has added nothing of substance to the topic yet. who cares what Mc Intyre's degree is in? is he posting false data? is it somehow true that in spite of the data the north pole is going to melt more this year than last year? where is all the counter evidence? for a rhetorician steinbeck.....you sure have an embarrassing lack of actual response. i am still waiting for you to respond to the data rather than giving me more and more bravado about how much you could destroy my points if you really wanted to. stop using ad hominem, strawman and argumentum ad assertum and start arguing the facts with me. otherwise, just admit that you are a follower with no mind of your own and let the grown ups continue to discuss this fascinating issue....
Stephen McIntyre does much more than present data. He interprets the data. He critiques the scientists who gathered those data. He indulges in commentary on the science. Take a look at some of his posting on his blog: The Link
And you think mop isn't spinning it? I suggest you take a closer look at his posts holisticaly. It's not just data. It's selective data with ******** rhetorical questions meant to cast doubt on prevailing scientific thought about ice melt worldwide.
