We've Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It's Causing A Dip In Earth's Gravity

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Science isn't a black and white world where either everything is known or nothing is known.

"It's settled science" is also the unassailable authority tossed out there whenever somebody questions the conclusions.  It's not a very convincing argument to say it's conclusive, then excuse discovered errors of fact by saying it's inherently unknowable.

The only thing you need to demonstrate is that energy is being accumulated in the system.

Really?  I would have thought that mankind's ability to influence that accumulation would have a role in the discussion.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

"It's settled science" is also the unassailable authority tossed out there whenever somebody questions the conclusions.  It's not a very convincing argument to say it's conclusive, then excuse discovered errors of fact by saying it's inherently unknowable.

I  didn't say it's inherently unknowable.  I said we don't understand all the details yet.  That doesn't mean we can't read trends as illustrated in thousands of studies.

[PB the Deplorable]

I  didn't say it's inherently unknowable.  I said we don't understand all the details yet.  That doesn't mean we can't read trends as illustrated in thousands of studies.

The Earth is still coming out of the last Ice Age.  At some point it will begin heading into the next one.

[Yorkshire pud]

Exactly. Yeah Paper Boy what he said. Don't concern yourself with the details of the "complex system with lots of variables that aren't all worked out". As long as the government is given more power, higher taxes, more regulations, more progressivenessism,  the variables will magically work out and all will be fine.

You don't get that science stuff do you? You understand that whatever power any government get given/ take; the science will continue to be researched and refined. But all climate scientists all over the world (yep, not just America) have drawn the same conclusions using thousands of separately funded and peer reviewed pieces of the jigsaw.

Still, as long as you don't believe what you think, you'll be fine.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't know who this Daily Express is, I have confidence that Pud can tell us why we should ignore it. 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser

The caption on the second photo:

Dr Benny Peiser took part in our recent Express debate [EXPRESS]

I can't be certain, but I suspect he's their pet sceptical scientist and just happened to address the few who turned up to the little tet a tet they sponsored.. This is the same daily Express that has run a several decades long (usually on the front page) campaign to get it's small readership on board to get the Princess Diana death reopened.. They also have almost weekly splashes about pensions, mortgages, and other stuff to appeal to their octogenarian readership.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

A hundred years is an awfully short period on a geologic time scale even compared to processes like ice age cycles.  Anyway I'm obviously not going to convince anyone and, considering I don't have direct involvement in climate change science I admit my opinion is as good or bad as anyone else.  I don't personally see how anyone can still deny it after all this time but I don't like to be a broken record either.

[PB the Deplorable]

You don't get that science stuff do you?...

You don't get that it's not science

... But all climate scientists all over the world (yep, not just America) have drawn the same conclusions using thousands of separately funded and peer reviewed pieces of the jigsaw...

Actually, a considerable percentage of climate scientists are telling us it's BS.  Which is very brave considering where much of the funding comes from and who does the hiring and granting of tenure

[Yorkshire pud]

You don't get that it's not science

Riiiiighht... So men and women with doctorates and lifelong research in climatology aren't doing science? I see.

Actually, a considerable percentage of climate scientists are telling us it's BS.  Which is very brave considering where much of the funding comes from and who does the hiring and granting of tenure

Remind us what the considerable percentage is please. But that's science, which pretty much disproves your belief that all scientists are in it for the money and a nice office funded by Marxists. Oh they're not now? You mean they argue and counter point other scientists' research until they do the same experiments and further work to arrive at peer reviewed papers? Say it isn't so!

[albrecht]

Riiiiighht... So men and women with doctorates and lifelong research in climatology aren't doing science? I see.

Remind us what the considerable percentage is please. But that's science, which pretty much disproves your belief that all scientists are in it for the money and a nice office funded by Marxists. Oh they're not now? You mean they argue and counter point other scientists' research until they do the same experiments and further work to arrive at peer reviewed papers? Say it isn't so!

Not all science is publicly funded and certainly not all studies, papers, etc are fraudulent. But some are. Whether it is drug company funded studies conveniently finds that their new drug is effective and has limited side-effects, the Sokal affair, and the problems (and scandals) of "peer-reviewed" papers clearly some studies and findings are wrong- or even outright frauds. Why should financial motivation work in the private sector but not in the public one?
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/scott-selling-science/5043620
http://www.drugregulations.org/2014/07/ipca-caught-red-handed-fudging-data.html

[Yorkshire pud]

Not all science is publicly funded and certainly not all studies, papers, etc are fraudulent. But some are. Whether it is drug company funded studies conveniently finds that their new drug is effective and has limited side-effects, the Sokal affair, and the problems (and scandals) of "peer-reviewed" papers clearly some studies and findings are wrong- or even outright frauds. Why should financial motivation work in the private sector but not in the public one?

What personal gain does any scientist have in being found out they've lied or fabricated their work? Remember about twenty years ago with the nuclear fusion at room temperature experiment? Saturated on TV, the two scientists who 'discovered it'.. Fame and no fortune because when other scientists tried to get the same results it came to naught...As did the diabolical and wholly destructive 'work' of (now struck off) Andrew Wakefield who using about 20 subjects 'discovered' that the MMR jab caused a predisposition to autism in children. The BMJ published it and were very embarrassed that they had to withdraw it later..It all made sense when it was revealed Wakefield was sponsored by a US company that only made separate jobs for measles, mumps and rubella (Separate jabs are not licensed to be used by medics in the UK)..

What happened? Well, it meant the concerned parents who believed they were being lied to by the entire medical community, didn't have their kids vaccinated. And for the first time in decades, the efficacy of it's usefulness dropped below the required 85-90% uptake..Kids were getting (mainly) measles..It got so bad that some died, and Swansea had emergency vaccination clinics running seven days a week after the population wised up to the fact that the now long discredited Wakefield was a twat, and the medics trying to protect their kids' life really was doing it in their best interest. All told that episode lasted about ten years until we're nearly back at full efficacy, all because some greedy shit needlessly scared the shit out of parents.  Justice prevailed and he's likely flipping burgers now.

[SciFiAuthor]

Man, this New Scientist article is a class AAA nightmare. I can't believe it made it past the editor, he must have needed a fluff piece in a bad way. Anyway, let's look at he article and deprogram ourselves from buying into shit like that by taking a look at how the article is written:

Firstly, this is more research being released to the media before peer review. In climate science, the results get reported to the media before peer review occurs. This new research from Durack hasn't been through the process yet, and until it does go through it then it is merely a claim. But take a look at the wording of the title of the New Scientist article: "The world is warming faster than we thought". Um, no, that's not what the content of the article is. More accurately parts of the southern hemisphere's oceans MIGHT HAVE BEEN warming faster than we thought, not the fucking world, not IS, but MIGHT HAVE BEEN. The New Scientist title can't ever be accurate based on the subject of this research. So we have a sensationalist title.

Then we have that lovely first sentence: "It's worse than we thought." Ok, more build up and sensationalism, hopefully people are staying on the web page longer and accidently clicking advertising links. But then everything goes to hell in the article. We find out that the study is retrospective, it was a study of poor measurement techniques of the southern hemisphere's ocean temperatures from 1970 to 2003. In other words, it's a claim that the scientists measuring the temperatures during that period were getting it wrong. And then we get a doozy of an end paragraph:

"Since around 2000, a network of buoys called the Argo floats have been collecting more accurate global ocean data, so more recent measurements of the southern hemisphere are more reliable."

Wait, our measurements now are accurate and have been for 14 years? Since we know how warm the ocean is now, then we already know the net answer to how it's warming and how warm it is, so what the fuck did this study really accomplish? Why is New Scientist claiming that it's worse than we thought when that isn't what this study said? Sensationalism, sensationalism, sensationalism.

And you libs buy it hook, line and sinker every time because it tells you what you want to hear.

[missing transmission]

I don't know who this Daily Express is, I have confidence that Pud can tell us why we should ignore it. 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser

Regarding Benny Peiser -
"has been extensively quoted in the UK media as an 'expert' on global warming, attacking renewables and promoting shale gas despite his lack of academic qualifications in either climate science or energy."

"Peiser wrote a paper criticising Dr Naomi Oreskes' study which reviewed 928 research papers on climate change, finding they all agreed with the scientific consensus. Peiser claimed that 34 of these "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming, but later retracted this, admitting that only one did."

[albrecht]

What personal gain does any scientist have in being found out they've lied or fabricated their work? Remember about twenty years ago with the nuclear fusion at room temperature experiment? Saturated on TV, the two scientists who 'discovered it'.. Fame and no fortune because when other scientists tried to get the same results it came to naught...As did the diabolical and wholly destructive 'work' of (now struck off) Andrew Wakefield who using about 20 subjects 'discovered' that the MMR jab caused a predisposition to autism in children. The BMJ published it and were very embarrassed that they had to withdraw it later..It all made sense when it was revealed Wakefield was sponsored by a US company that only made separate jobs for measles, mumps and rubella (Separate jabs are not licensed to be used by medics in the UK)..

What happened? Well, it meant the concerned parents who believed they were being lied to by the entire medical community, didn't have their kids vaccinated. And for the first time in decades, the efficacy of it's usefulness dropped below the required 85-90% uptake..Kids were getting (mainly) measles..It got so bad that some died, and Swansea had emergency vaccination clinics running seven days a week after the population wised up to the fact that the now long discredited Wakefield was a twat, and the medics trying to protect their kids' life really was doing it in their best interest. All told that episode lasted about ten years until we're nearly back at full efficacy, all because some greedy shit needlessly scared the shit out of parents.  Justice prevailed and he's likely flipping burgers now.

Motivation is the similar as a drug company fudging data. Profit, prestige, politics, fame, etc. To use the drug company example. Sure, IF they get caught later they open themselves to a big lawsuit and share price fall but if not they will make $$ profits and their quarterly statements and share price with go up and, usually, the worst that happens is that the drug simply doesn't work (ideally, worse is it is actually kills or causes harm. Then lawsuit is really $$) Financial motivation works for universities and science also. There is actually an amazing amount of politics at Universities, even in the hard sciences: to bring in donations, to bring in government contracts, to get private companies to fund professorial chairs, to publish a good amount of papers, etc.
ps:
Funny you mention it but Wakefield still has supporters and recently moved near me. Of course, Alex Jones supports him and some Hollywood stars do so also (the usual anti-vaccine wackos). So he, apparently, is doing fine if he can afford to buy in this real estate market and I think, though not sure how or how it could be legal, running some kind of clinic or business and still trying to sue.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/court-andrew-wakefield-autism-researcher-cannot-su/nhQhN/
Here is his house:
http://propaccess.traviscad.org/clientdb/Property.aspx?prop_id=521506
one of the best postal codes in town and very $$ property. Interestingly, very close to another C2C-type guest lives (although I'm not sure if he ever was on C2C he was sort of famous in the conspiracy and anti-NewAge movement): Texe Marrs. Same street even!
https://www.google.com/maps/place/802+Crystal+Creek+Dr,+Austin,+TX+78746/@30.3088465,-97.8681367,82m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x865b35e158edb0ab:0x99f4ca19a52e4094

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

And you libs buy it hook, line and sinker every time because it tells you what you want to hear.

I'm not a lib so I guess you're not talking about me -- which is good because I have enough science education to know the difference between a news article and a scientific paper and I appreciate your observations about that.  I think they are valid in general.  However I disagree with your last statement as quoted above.  It seems that the more conservative leaning among us have jumped on this as an authoritative article that demonstrates scientists don't know what they are talking about.  Personally I've been trying to take a broader approach saying that the body of evidence is more important than any one article, study, or claim.

[PB the Deplorable]

Riiiiighht... So men and women with doctorates and lifelong research in climatology aren't doing science? I see...

Well, using the Scientific Method, they can't quite seem to get their Hypothesis correct - i.e. after doing the research their predictions are wrong.

But what we do have is intentional destruction of core data, efforts put into amplifying results that agree with the narrative - along with efforts to downplay and ignore results that do not agree with the narrative, and plenty of claims made - always on the side of alarm - that have to be corrected if not repudiated later.

It seems a lot more like politics than science to me

[PB the Deplorable]

... Remind us what the considerable percentage is please. But that's science, which pretty much disproves your belief that all scientists are in it for the money and a nice office funded by Marxists. Oh they're not now? You mean they argue and counter point other scientists' research until they do the same experiments and further work to arrive at peer reviewed papers? Say it isn't so!

Well, first off I don't think I said they are all in it for the money.  I think most scientists are in their field because they love their work, enjoy seeking knowledge, and hope to increase our knowledge in that field. 

Those working in this particular filed mostly collect data and forward it to people collecting it - why wouldn't most of them trust what they hear back, they've been told those questioning it are just toothless flat-earthers, right?

But then there are those nagging dissenters.  Maybe they are the ones in it for the money


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

[Gd5150]

Well, first off I don't think I said they are all in it for the money.  I think most scientists are in their field because they love their work, enjoy seeking knowledge, and hope to increase our knowledge in that field. 

Those working in this particular filed mostly collect data and forward it to people collecting it - why wouldn't most of them trust what they hear back, they've been told those questioning it are just toothless flat-earthers, right?

The problem is objective thinking normal people of all backgrounds trying to make a living don't go into environmental sciences, or climate sciences. Environmentalists do. They enter the field with a skull full of mush, and then are subjected to the previous generations environmentalists who pursued the environmental sciences and are now professors. Its a big snowball that lacks any objectivity. This flaw in the higher education system can be applied to political science, journalism, history. It's why there is so much revisionist history. No one wants to do a masters thesis on how Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, there no news there. They have do it on how he smoked pot, was from Kenya, was pro-choice, believed in global-warming, or whatever the flavor of the week pop-culture issue is.

Science is absolutely an objective method of studying and acquiring knowledge. When performed by bias scientists who have a predetermined objective and have been caught rigging data and lying, you can toss their entire cause. This would be the global disruption campaign.

[SciFiAuthor]

I'm not a lib so I guess you're not talking about me -- which is good because I have enough science education to know the difference between a news article and a scientific paper and I appreciate your observations about that.  I think they are valid in general.  However I disagree with your last statement as quoted above.  It seems that the more conservative leaning among us have jumped on this as an authoritative article that demonstrates scientists don't know what they are talking about.  Personally I've been trying to take a broader approach saying that the body of evidence is more important than any one article, study, or claim.

Definitely not accusing you of being a liberal or a conservative, I've enjoyed our exchanges. I'm not beholden to either as well. That said, I just see this over and over with freaking climate science articles and it drives me nuts. If you go into any other science, the reporters will still use caveats. They'll say "Scientists may have found Higgs Boson". That never happens in climate science articles anymore, it's always worded in the scary we're-all-gonna-die way, but when I look at the actual content of the article or go read the paper then I invariably find that it's nothing close to what the reporter claimed. The public is mislead about climate change.

That's not to say that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere won't change the climate . . . eventually. But natural questions must be asked. First, is it high enough now to be changing the climate, or is the Earth's atmosphere a stable system? This is not an automatically answered by the body of evidence, since the earth in the past has exceeded current carbon dioxide levels and ended up fine (or we wouldn't be here). Second, we must ask if that climate change, if occurring, is a bad thing. It's always painted as such, but I see a huge amount of the world's farmable landmass wasted as frozen Canadian and Russian tiaga, all while I see a growing population that needs food. Since the equator areas aren't exactly the breadbaskets of the world, then we should probably ask if a warmer Siberia might not be a bad thing. Plants like carbon dioxide, and crop yields have risen in lock-step with carbon dioxide emissions. Is that a bad thing, especially in light of the fact that the same people that are trusting in "settled science" are also condemning GMO crops? Third, we need to ask if technology can provide a remedy that doesn't require humanity to curtail its civilization.

None of those three questions are in the public debate right now because the science became political, and then it was sensationalized into something it's not. The real failure of the climate scientists has been to not curb that trend. Why isn't Durack out condemning the New Scientist article as inaccurate? Because there's no such thing as bad publicity if you're looking for more grant money. Until people figure that out, there is zero way anyone will know the truth about climate change. So in 20 years when nothing's panned out how everyone expected and fought about and we end up with something no one predicted -- just like every other alarmist movement in this history of mankind turned out -- what then?

[SciFiAuthor]

The problem is objective thinking normal people of all backgrounds trying to make a living don't go into environmental sciences, or climate sciences. Environmentalists do. They enter the field with a skull full of mush, and then are subjected to the previous generations environmentalists who pursued the environmental sciences and are now professors. Its a big snowball that lacks any objectivity. This flaw in the higher education system can be applied to political science, journalism, history. It's why there is so much revisionist history. No one wants to do a masters thesis on how Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, there no news there. They have do it on how he smoked pot, was from Kenya, was pro-choice, believed in global-warming, or whatever the flavor of the week pop-culture issue is.

Science is absolutely an objective method of studying and acquiring knowledge. When performed by bias scientists who have a predetermined objective and have been caught rigging data and lying, you can toss their entire cause. This would be the global disruption campaign.

Magnificent post. 100% correct.

[Zoo]

I love it when people who do not study something seem to know more about it than those who do. I am all about science and facts. I am also aware of bad science which is paid for from such companies that care not about the world and only profit. Koch Brothers had a study done that said fracking did nothing to groundwater. That all the chemicals they use are safe to wildlife. Also that natural gas is good for the environment. The things people believe makes me laugh. Like most people in the USA are ignorant about this subject because it does not really concern them at the moment. But hell with just keep doing what you have been doing nothing bad will ever happen!!1

[PB the Deplorable]

I love it when people who do not study something seem to know more about it than those who do. I am all about science and facts. I am also aware of bad science which is paid for from such companies that care not about the world and only profit...

So you suspect the possibility of bad science done on behalf of profit, but not the possibility of bad science done on behalf of politics?

I don't claim to know more about areas of study than folks in those fields, but I'm pretty good at spotting a pack of lies when it presents itself.

[Zoo]

So you suspect the possibility of bad science done on behalf of profit, but not the possibility of bad science done on behalf of politics?

I don't claim to know more about areas of study than folks in those fields, but I'm pretty good at spotting a pack of lies when it presents itself.

Profit and Politics go hand and hand. Yes their is bad science in both.
I do know this, we are destroying life on this planet. If anyone thinks we are not is simply delusional. It will happen quickly too. When the countries in the Middle East are investing almost everything they have into sustainable energy one might wonder why? Potable water is just one thing we are running out of quickly. But like I said earlier who cares COAL and OIL for life Merica!!1   

[PB the Deplorable]

Profit and Politics go hand and hand. Yes their is bad science in both.
I do know this, we are destroying life on this planet. If anyone thinks we are not is simply delusional. It will happen quickly too. When the countries in the Middle East are investing almost everything they have into sustainable energy one might wonder why? Potable water is just one thing we are running out of quickly. But like I said earlier who cares COAL and OIL for life Merica!!1

I'm for being environmentally friendly and 'saving the planet'.

Can we do it in a smart, logical, non-demagogic way that doesn't involve the usual lies and heavy-handedness the Left always insist on?  And doesn't include the end of capitalism and industry?

[Zoo]

I'm for being environmentally friendly and 'saving the planet'.

Can we do it in a smart, logical, non-demagogic way that doesn't involve the usual lies and heavy-handedness the Left always insist on?  And doesn't include the end of capitalism and industry?

Yes. And to end capitalism and make industry self running (with robots) is the goal is it not? As the human race we must strive to more than working and making money should we not. Or is the true goal in life simply become rich!!1

[albrecht]

I'm for being environmentally friendly and 'saving the planet'.

Can we do it in a smart, logical, non-demagogic way that doesn't involve the usual lies and heavy-handedness the Left always insist on?  And doesn't include the end of capitalism and industry?

Read up on the Technocracy Movement in the late 19th and early 20th century (not the term Technocrat as used in Europe these days- although it is somewhat similar.) Basically a society, eventually global, controlled by the elite, educated scientists and engineers eliminating price systems (and thus in their mind inefficiency or unfairness) and using technology to provide everything to all. (However, UNLIKE the leftists they did not advocate revolution or subversion to get to their version of utopia and unlike the leftists of today they wanted people will real degrees to be leaders. But like the leftists, especially Fabian types, they did want "social engineering" to enact change- just non-violent.) Quick summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

[Zoo]

I think you are on to something their are several other groups trying to help with out any political or corporate backing. I wish them the best of luck but I am thinking the only way to change peoples mind in this country (USA) is if something horrible happens which is sad!!1   

[pate]

I often think the horrible thing that happens would be nuclear power plants (yes, I pronounce that nyuc-yah-leahr (asp))

Anathema before CO2 b3came vogue...

EVIL world destroying etc.

Byproducts of SATAN!  Or anti-GAIA!

Still no mention of nuclear's non introduction into the biosphere of the GREAT EVIL CO2....

I guess there is Bush and then there is Obama...  Which IS the greater EVIL?

Neither did anything for Cthulu (nuclear)...

Fools and panderers!  You will have yours!  I refer you to the Necronomicon!

Heretics!

[missing transmission]

I often think the horrible thing that happens would be nuclear power plants (yes, I pronounce that nyuc-yah-leahr (asp))

Anathema before CO2 b3came vogue...

EVIL world destroying etc.

Byproducts of SATAN!  Or anti-GAIA!

Still no mention of nuclear's non introduction into the biosphere of the GREAT EVIL CO2....

I guess there is Bush and then there is Obama...  Which IS the greater EVIL?

Neither did anything for Cthulu (nuclear)...

Fools and panderers!  You will have yours!  I refer you to the Necronomicon!

Heretics!

Magnificent post. 100% correct.

[Zoo]

Magnificent post. 100% correct.

Watch "Pandoras Promise" then I would love to we speak about Nuclear Power again!!1

I often think the horrible thing that happens would be nuclear power plants (yes, I pronounce that nyuc-yah-leahr (asp))

Anathema before CO2 b3came vogue...

EVIL world destroying etc.

Byproducts of SATAN!  Or anti-GAIA!

Still no mention of nuclear's non introduction into the biosphere of the GREAT EVIL CO2....

I guess there is Bush and then there is Obama...  Which IS the greater EVIL?

Neither did anything for Cthulu (nuclear)...

Fools and panderers!  You will have yours!  I refer you to the Necronomicon!

Heretics!

Do me a sold and watch "Pandoras Promise" it is about the nuclear lie!!1

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes. And to end capitalism and make industry self running (with robots) is the goal is it not? As the human race we must strive to more than working and making money should we not. Or is the true goal in life simply become rich!!1

No, the end of Capitalism is not the goal.  At least it's not the goal of those who value freedom.  It is of course a goal of the Left - whose ultimate goal is to enslave us under a one-world government, run by them.


The reality is, to the extent we have the ability to keep what we produce or exchange it for what others have produced (Capitalism) is the very measure of our personal liberty.  The alternative is a top down command economy run by an elite whose only real skill is seizing power - a dictatorship, a tyranny.   


Isn't this really the crux of things? 

Those who are trying to create a Utopia, where everyone is equal and our lives are set out and decided for us by an elite - who also allocate the resources, vs  Individual Liberty - featuring the right to property ownership, freedom of exchange, the rule of law, opportunity for all, limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility.