[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The issue isn't the change in glaciers in the rate of change.

Are you sure?

I thought it was. I thought this was the issue.

$1:

A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds global glaciers melted at the same rate in the first half of the 20th century as in the second half. This implies no man-made influence on glacier melt, since the melting began naturally at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 with "safe" CO2 levels, and continued at the same rate throughout the 20th century with no acceleration. The authors predict glacier mass loss will continue at the same rate in the 21st century and have "relatively weak dependence" on future greenhouse gas emissions.

You know? Natural melt or the result of human induced warming. I could have sworn that's what Bart and Lemmy were discussing.

Whatever, I guess.

But hey, speaking of CO2, and knowing now there is no crisis without positive feedback, so climate sensitivity is what the debate is really about, have you heard about the new paper Anthony appears to have co-written?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/ ... sentation/

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The issue isn't the change in glaciers in the rate of change.

Are you sure?

I thought it was. I thought this was the issue.

$1:

A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds global glaciers melted at the same rate in the first half of the 20th century as in the second half. This implies no man-made influence on glacier melt, since the melting began naturally at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 with "safe" CO2 levels, and continued at the same rate throughout the 20th century with no acceleration. The authors predict glacier mass loss will continue at the same rate in the 21st century and have "relatively weak dependence" on future greenhouse gas emissions.

You know? Natural melt or the result of human induced warming. I could have sworn that's what Bart and Lemmy were discussing.

Whatever, I guess.

But hey, speaking of CO2, and knowing now there is no crisis without positive feedback, so climate sensitivity is what the debate is really about, have you heard about the new paper Anthony appears to have co-written?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/ ... sentation/

You're all over the place again. It's the deniers typical no GW --> No AGW --> No CAGW going around and around, ever louder. Talk about positive feedback loops. lol.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You're all over the place again. It's the deniers typical no GW --> No AGW --> No CAGW going around and around, ever louder. Talk about positive feedback loops. lol.

Hold up a second here. YOU of all people know I have never said there was no global warming. I simply say that the warming that started around 20,000 years ago that freed most of Canada from the grip of ice is ongoing and that it hasn't stopped.

Are humans contributing to that warming cycle? Perhaps. But are we causing it as so many AGW alarmists would have simple minded people believe?

Absolutely not.

To counter my assertion all you need to do is to determine when the warming at the end of the last great ice age totally concluded.

And when was that?

[Lemmy]

e.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A But are we causing it as so many AGW alarmists would have simple minded people believe? Absolutely not.

To counter my assertion all you need to do is to determine when the warming at the end of the last great ice age totally concluded.

And when was that?

Once again, you're imposing your own personal hypothesis with no expertise, evidence nor methodology to support it. Speculation doesn't trump science.

What in fuck are you talking about?

I've supported my opinion with documented facts that show the rate of recession for glaciers where actual surveys (and not murky 'estimates') demonstrate that recession was being observed prior to the Industrial Age...even if you define that as starting in 1820.

That's not speculation you big friggin' doofus. That's indisputable fact. Unless you want to say that Captain Vancouver was a total asshole when he first surveyed Glacier Bay.

And once again, where in hell does YOUR expertise or methodology come from that so readily refutes my opinion? You say you're not qualified to prove me wrong but that won't stop you from just blowing it out your pie hole that I'm wrong.

And then you wonder why people like me think you're no different than a cult member who's been told that the great god of AGW must be appeased by eliminating carbon emissions.

You have no fucking idea why you believe this aside from that you've been told to believe it and you don't want the other cult members to denounce you for heresy should you dare to to think on your own.

[Lemmy]

Y

[Zipperfish]

All I know is that the timbre of the conversation has changed, with the deniers now consistently saying "We never said there was no anthropogenic global warming. We're saying it isn't catastrophic."

The deniers have no consistent theory. They don't have to. Their job is to muddy the waters and sew doubt, which they have managed quite successfully in the US, and Australia.

My prediction is that, come the next big La Nina, they'll be back to "no significant global warming for x years."

[PluggyRug]

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're absolutely right, that I listen to experts who have expertise that I haven't. But where you lose it is with the "cultist" nonsense. Believing the prevailing weight of scientific evidence on an issue is hardly cultish in any sense.

Believing the prevailing weight of anyone on any matter and then asserting that as some sort of validation is called an 'Appeal to Authority Fallacy'.

A fine example of this fallacy was from the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein) in which one hundred authors and physicists stated that Einstein was wrong about general relativity.

Einstein's response to a reporter who asked him what he thought of being denounced by one hundred academics (paraphrased) was "Why do they need one hundred to prove me wrong when it takes only one?"

Einstein's biggest insult to the prevailing weight of scientific opinion in his time was in his understanding of the transmission of light and that the speed of light was a universal constant. The scientists of the time asserted that the space between planets and stars was filled with 'luminiferous aether' and that it was the drag of this aether that limited the speed of light between stars...much like an atmosphere imposes a terminal velocity on falling objects.

They devoutly believed in the luminiferous aether absent any actual evidence to support its existence. A whole shitload of very highly educated people had convinced themselves of an unscientific falsehood.

It didn't matter how many people devoutly believed in the falsehood because it was still false. No one could prove it was true. All they could do was cook the mathematics to try to use the falsehood to explain away things they didn't understand.

Just the same as the proponents of the falsehood of catastrophic, man-made global warming keep 'adjusting' actual and historic temperature measurements to fit their devout beliefs instead of just accepting the data as they are and adjusting their beliefs to fit the reality that's right in front of their eyes.

That's why I refer to data that have not been 'adjusted' - like historic and well-documented maps that show where glacial recession has been observed sometimes for several hundred years.

And when I look at those kinds of records I can only conclude that the warming was going on before the Industrial Age and where no one asserts that any glaciers are newer than the last ice age it's then simple logic to postulate that glaciers around the world have been retreating since the peak of the last ice age.

Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is usually true.

[Lemmy]

!

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Believing the prevailing weight of anyone on any matter and then asserting that as some sort of validation is called an 'Appeal to Authority Fallacy'.

Nope. You're absolutely dead-wrong about what "appeal to authority" means. Supporting a theory behind which the overwhelming consensus of evidence lies is NOT appeal to authority.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is usually true.

That's an appeal to authority fallacy. Right there!

Claiming that something is true because an authority says it is true is an appeal to authority.

The consensus variation of citing a collection of authorities especially in matters of science is nonsensical because science is not a democracy.

You might want to query 'Lysenkoism' here.

And Occam's Razor is not an appeal to authority. It is a philosophic principle.

[Lemmy]

:

[BartSimpson]

In 1900 the weight of scientific evidence clearly proved the existence of the luminferous aether.

In 1930's Russia the weight of scientific evidence clearly debunked the bourgeois capitalistic notions of genetics.

Citing a 'weight of scientific evidence' doesn't make anything true when citing one single reproducable proof does.

And you don't know what Occam's Razor is. Stop arguing it until you do or I expect Zip to school you on it and you do not want both of us telling you you're nworng.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

All I know is that the timbre of the conversation has changed, with the deniers now consistently saying "We never said there was no anthropogenic global warming. We're saying it isn't catastrophic."

Of course it's changed.

You don't want to talk about the subject of the thread. Al Gore's a lying, scamming, evangelistic twat and you know it.

So you tell your favorite lie to divert the conversation.

And it is a lie. It doesn't even make sense. The theory of greenhouse warming has been around since 1896. The general public didn't become interested until politicians added the alarm aspect.

Here, listen to this smug, sneering jackass of a one-time Democratic senator tell you how he used activist, catastrophist, astro-physicist James Hansen to scam an alarm at a Senate talk back in 1988.



The scare began to germinate in Political circles, but it didn't really connect with the public until Al Gore came out with his movie in 2006. The movie was about a proposed coming catastrophe of warming caused by humans. Without the catastrophe element nobody goes to see that movie. It's about the coming catastrophe.

Politicians and the media start pushing things like the IPCC and hurricane Katrina into the public eye and it's not warming that gets people talking. It's the scare that catastrophe is coming.

The issue has always been about the catastrophe. It wouldn't be an issue without it. Remember this list of things caused by global warming from 2012?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

"OMG the end is nigh!" That's what those are about. They're not about "It's getting warmer so grab some suntan oil?"

You're claim the issue was only talked about a denial of warming at one time is a lie. It's always been a lie. We've always told you it's a lie and your lie has never worked. You know what they say about people doing the same thing over and over again and failing, don't you?

It isn't just that it's a lie. It's an obvious lie that's disproved over and over again. Stop lying.

From 2012

[Thanos]

I refuse to believe any of you until someone with a blog and their own YouTube channel says something first.