so looking at the graph your pushing, there's a million + more sq km of ice at the end of Mar 2008 compared to Mar 2007 and you conclude it is proof of Global Warming ?
Cool.
The oceans are cooling, the bulk of the atmosphere is cooling - only the surface temps indicate warming but there is the little problem of corrupt measurements and data, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is increasing in mass, but you still believe Al Gore is correct in his AGW theory.
It's only logical
He's so sure he refuses to debate anyone and needs a $300m PR blitz to support his position.
I think we'll break a record on this one again. So much came out last year indicating melting was happening faster that scientists originally thought, and since the melting speeds the warming, I'd say yes.
...but you still believe Al Gore is correct in his AGW theory...
Uhhh, you are aware, of course, that he didn't create the theory...right? It actually has been developed over decades by literally tens of thousands of scientists, researchers, assistants, partners and theorists, and has been reviewed, modified, updated, corrected, improved and criticized in various capacities countless times. Perhaps some data was suspicious. Perhaps some formulation or simulation was faulty. Perhaps, even, a few researchers were on the take. Even if we grant you all of this, there is still no way you're going to convince anyone that the trickle of quote-mined and poorly interpreted specks of media-spoon-fed (and usually premature and unverified) minor issues that crop up occasionally - and are dutifully echoed ad nauseum by armchair PhDs - is anywhere near enough evidence to convince anyone with respect for the scientific establishment to withdraw said trust. Particularly when the potential risk and the exponentially rising costs of mitigation compel any sane person to
a) put trust in the experts, because we pay them to inform us, and we may think we understand all the details, but we usually don't, and;
b) make at least a cursory effort to not impede the capability to do sound scientific investigation.
Meaning: If you don't have anything to add to the process at an effective level - and I'm quite certain that you don't, since blog entries rarely get published, nor do bloggers arrange academic conferences - then stop looking like an ignoramus and find something worthwhile to complain about. Like potholes, or the garbage, or something like that. Despite what you think, the scientific community is very critical. More than you can imagine, actually. It's kinda the nature of the method itself.
You're just not going to convince most people to listen to your blog rantings over a scientific establishment that has given us wonders like space travel or modern medicine. The people you do convince are kooks.
...and the anomaly is increasing rapidly (bottom graph). Will it reach last year's record lows? The betting is on.
so looking at the graph your pushing, there's a million + more sq km of ice at the end of Mar 2008 compared to Mar 2007 and you conclude it is proof of Global Warming ?
ReplyDeleteCool.
The oceans are cooling, the bulk of the atmosphere is cooling - only the surface temps indicate warming but there is the little problem of corrupt measurements and data, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is increasing in mass, but you still believe Al Gore is correct in his AGW theory.
It's only logical
He's so sure he refuses to debate anyone and needs a $300m PR blitz to support his position.
I think we'll break a record on this one again. So much came out last year indicating melting was happening faster that scientists originally thought, and since the melting speeds the warming, I'd say yes.
ReplyDeleteIt's something I'd rather be wrong about, though.
so looking at the graph your pushing, there's a million + more sq km of ice at the end of Mar 2008 compared to Mar 2007...
ReplyDeleteWell, at least this one appears to be able to read a graph.
Maybe we'll get to reading comprehension soon.
...you conclude it is proof of Global Warming?
Or maybe not.
...but you still believe Al Gore is correct in his AGW theory...
ReplyDeleteUhhh, you are aware, of course, that he didn't create the theory...right? It actually has been developed over decades by literally tens of thousands of scientists, researchers, assistants, partners and theorists, and has been reviewed, modified, updated, corrected, improved and criticized in various capacities countless times. Perhaps some data was suspicious. Perhaps some formulation or simulation was faulty. Perhaps, even, a few researchers were on the take. Even if we grant you all of this, there is still no way you're going to convince anyone that the trickle of quote-mined and poorly interpreted specks of media-spoon-fed (and usually premature and unverified) minor issues that crop up occasionally - and are dutifully echoed ad nauseum by armchair PhDs - is anywhere near enough evidence to convince anyone with respect for the scientific establishment to withdraw said trust. Particularly when the potential risk and the exponentially rising costs of mitigation compel any sane person to
a) put trust in the experts, because we pay them to inform us, and we may think we understand all the details, but we usually don't, and;
b) make at least a cursory effort to not impede the capability to do sound scientific investigation.
Meaning: If you don't have anything to add to the process at an effective level - and I'm quite certain that you don't, since blog entries rarely get published, nor do bloggers arrange academic conferences - then stop looking like an ignoramus and find something worthwhile to complain about. Like potholes, or the garbage, or something like that. Despite what you think, the scientific community is very critical. More than you can imagine, actually. It's kinda the nature of the method itself.
You're just not going to convince most people to listen to your blog rantings over a scientific establishment that has given us wonders like space travel or modern medicine. The people you do convince are kooks.
Thanks for listening.
Well this is bad sign,when this is continue there's have a possibility to increase the volume of water in pacific.
ReplyDeleteMaria[mens dress boots]