AGW denial is anti-science

[JuniorD]

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Even news that Icelandic glaciers are growing is being portrayed as bad news

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/ma...

As usual from a denier not quite the correct story being told.

First of all the article talks about a single glacier not glaciers.

Secondly it's Greenland not Iceland

Thirdly it also gives a likely explanation for the growth...a shift in the a climate pattern called the north west oscillation which had brought cold water northward along Greenland's west coast as backed up by measurements of the water temperatures showing that the cold water has persisted.

At least read and digest your own links.

Yes, I mistakenly said Iceland, rather than Greenland.

Here is a more popular media report on the matter:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/201...

here is how this report and it's headline appears on Google

Jesus Christ fella, you can't see why that's still not good news. It clearly says in the graphic you've posted why it's still not good news...it's right at the end by the thumbsnap logo.

It's also in the second link you've just posted.



One glacier expanding due to a cold water current switching direction whilst all of the other glaciers are continuing to shrink is not good news.

Do you have a problem with that? Is it media bias?

On one hand they say melting glaciers is bad news.

But on the other hand, growing glaciers - even ones that are growing "Thanks to a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that switches back and forth between warm and cold about once every 20 years, cooler waters are penetrating far up the western coast of Greenland. "- are bad news too?

among all the melting glacier doom and gloom I think it's fab news that a glacier could be growing for twenty-odd years!

It's like being at primary school in the 1980s when we all looked at each other in dismay when the teacher said that the world's oil reserves would run out by 2020, but 35 years later in 2019 fk yeah we actually have st loads of oil left and have found even more!

[V10leptoquark]

JuniorD said:

On one hand they say melting glaciers is bad news.

But on the other hand, growing glaciers - even ones that are growing "Thanks to a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that switches back and forth between warm and cold about once every 20 years, cooler waters are penetrating far up the western coast of Greenland. "- are bad news too?

One gets used to their wishy washy explanations of why the climate refuses to act in accordance with their faith.
It really doesn't matter which direction the climate is changing - or what observations we witness on a yearly basis, it will sure enough be bad news for us CO2 emitters and bad intents for anything to the right of hard left wing politics.

In ten year's time when the earth is uninhabitable - and when we are all merrily continuing life more or less as per the norm , the same old fear mongering stories will likely be around pushing for left wing agendas by those of a hard left wing stance. At the same time the media will continue to lap it all up because it gets people scared and as such fear often generates sales.

[Gadgetmac]

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Even news that Icelandic glaciers are growing is being portrayed as bad news

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/ma...

As usual from a denier not quite the correct story being told.

First of all the article talks about a single glacier not glaciers.

Secondly it's Greenland not Iceland

Thirdly it also gives a likely explanation for the growth...a shift in the a climate pattern called the north west oscillation which had brought cold water northward along Greenland's west coast as backed up by measurements of the water temperatures showing that the cold water has persisted.

At least read and digest your own links.

Yes, I mistakenly said Iceland, rather than Greenland.

Here is a more popular media report on the matter:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/201...

here is how this report and it's headline appears on Google

Jesus Christ fella, you can't see why that's still not good news. It clearly says in the graphic you've posted why it's still not good news...it's right at the end by the thumbsnap logo.

It's also in the second link you've just posted.



One glacier expanding due to a cold water current switching direction whilst all of the other glaciers are continuing to shrink is not good news.

Do you have a problem with that? Is it media bias?

On one hand they say melting glaciers is bad news.

But on the other hand, growing glaciers - even ones that are growing "Thanks to a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that switches back and forth between warm and cold about once every 20 years, cooler waters are penetrating far up the western coast of Greenland. "- are bad news too?

among all the melting glacier doom and gloom I think it's fab news that a glacier could be growing for twenty-odd years!

It's like being at primary school in the 1980s when we all looked at each other in dismay when the teacher said that the world's oil reserves would run out by 2020, but 35 years later in 2019 fk yeah we actually have st loads of oil left and have found even more!

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

[JuniorD]

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

[Gadgetmac]

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

[JuniorD]

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

Hang on a minute!

You said “Ok, conversation over”.

But you kept communicating.

Don’t you have any conviction in what you say?

[Gadgetmac]

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

Hang on a minute!

You said “Ok, conversation over”.

But you kept communicating.

I know, I thought you'd stop asking me questions but you didn't...even though I said "conversation over" ...so I don't like to be rude.

Anyway, best get searching for another glacier that's growing.

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

This isn’t any old glacier though, is it? This is a glacier considered by many to be the bellwether for CAGW. So it’s special, according to climate scientists. Personally, I think all glaciers are special.

[stew-STR160]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

This isn’t any old glacier though, is it? This is a glacier considered by many to be the bellwether for CAGW. So it’s special, according to climate scientists. Personally, I think all glaciers are special.

Maybe we could sacrifice some goats to the glacier gods, show them we are sorry.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

This isn’t any old glacier though, is it? This is a glacier considered by many to be the bellwether for CAGW. So it’s special, according to climate scientists. Personally, I think all glaciers are special.

Can you show me where it says that this glacier is the only one that matters regardless of what all of the other glaciers are doing please only I seem to have missed it.

Kinda like you missed the explanation for its growth.

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

This isn’t any old glacier though, is it? This is a glacier considered by many to be the bellwether for CAGW. So it’s special, according to climate scientists. Personally, I think all glaciers are special.

Can you show me where it says that this glacier is the only one that matters regardless of what all of the other glaciers are doing please only I seem to have missed it.

Kinda like you missed the explanation for its growth.

You know what bellwether means, don’t you?

And all the other glaciers are shrinking? Are you sure?

Yes, I missed the explanation for the growth of the glacier. Let me guess though... it‘s growing due to global warming!

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

JuniorD said:

Gadgetmac said:

I suspect you are being wilfully stupid

So if (say) 200 glaciers are shrinking and 1 is growing you think it's "Fab"?

Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram alone recently measured 28 glaciers that are retreating.

Ok, conversation over.

So you think it's all together bad that the Jakobshavn glacier is in fact growing? I don't understand.

Would you be unhappy if the deforestation of a rain forest stopped in favour of planting 000s of new trees instead?

Seriously fella, stop now, you're just making yourself look silly. That's not even an approximate analogy.

To use a correct analogy if an article said "one tree has been planted in the New Forest but that's not good news because 200 trees around it have been felled" you'd think that's "Fab" news and somehow overrides the news that 200 had been felled?

Because that's what you're arguing.

This isn’t any old glacier though, is it? This is a glacier considered by many to be the bellwether for CAGW. So it’s special, according to climate scientists. Personally, I think all glaciers are special.

Can you show me where it says that this glacier is the only one that matters regardless of what all of the other glaciers are doing please only I seem to have missed it.

Kinda like you missed the explanation for its growth.

You know what bellwether means, don’t you?

And all the other glaciers are shrinking? Are you sure?

Yes, I missed the explanation for the growth of the glacier. Let me guess though... it‘s growing due to global warming!

Yes I do know what bellwether means so I'll ask again only in a form you can understand.

Can you please show me where it says that this is a bellwether glacier and that its importance to AGW is more than all of the other glaciers around Greenland that are shrinking?

Yes shrinking, as the links provided show.

You might also want to try reading back merely a page to find the explanation for its growth.

There will always be individual glaciers that are growing for many many reasons it's not a case of all glaciers will shrink together at the same rate.

HTH

[cymtriks]

In response to the OP:

Reading the comments of the AGW believers on various threads it is striking to me how similar the way they argue is to those opposing evolution. I found it impossible to engage with theists (strangely I never found an evolution denier who wasn’t religious, just like it seems I never find a left wing AGW denier) because they would never directly address weaknesses in their own arguments. Their modus operandi was to try to find some inconsistency in the theory of evolution and claim that proved the whole theory was wrong, without ever recognising the massive problems with their own belief system, which dwarfed any problems with evolution.

The same applies to AGW believers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They assume through out that CO2 can affect global warming (some serious climatologists dispute that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than alternative theories linking it mainly to increase in sunspot activity. However, and crucially, given that sunspot activity has increased and is known to be a climate driver they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in sunspot activity has not led to an increase in global temperatures.

What is most frustrating about believers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of Natural GW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.

[Gadgetmac]

Righto

Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.

AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).

But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.

[Esceptico]

cymtriks said:

In response to the OP:

Reading the comments of the AGW believers on various threads it is striking to me how similar the way they argue is to those opposing evolution. I found it impossible to engage with theists (strangely I never found an evolution denier who wasn’t religious, just like it seems I never find a left wing AGW denier) because they would never directly address weaknesses in their own arguments. Their modus operandi was to try to find some inconsistency in the theory of evolution and claim that proved the whole theory was wrong, without ever recognising the massive problems with their own belief system, which dwarfed any problems with evolution.

The same applies to AGW believers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They assume through out that CO2 can affect global warming (some serious climatologists dispute that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than alternative theories linking it mainly to increase in sunspot activity. However, and crucially, given that sunspot activity has increased and is known to be a climate driver they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in sunspot activity has not led to an increase in global temperatures.

What is most frustrating about believers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of Natural GW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.

It’s almost as if the IPCC hadn’t included solar radiance in their assessment of all natural forcing factors...

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG...

[stew-STR160]

Esceptico said:

cymtriks said:

In response to the OP:

Reading the comments of the AGW believers on various threads it is striking to me how similar the way they argue is to those opposing evolution. I found it impossible to engage with theists (strangely I never found an evolution denier who wasn’t religious, just like it seems I never find a left wing AGW denier) because they would never directly address weaknesses in their own arguments. Their modus operandi was to try to find some inconsistency in the theory of evolution and claim that proved the whole theory was wrong, without ever recognising the massive problems with their own belief system, which dwarfed any problems with evolution.

The same applies to AGW believers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They assume through out that CO2 can affect global warming (some serious climatologists dispute that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than alternative theories linking it mainly to increase in sunspot activity. However, and crucially, given that sunspot activity has increased and is known to be a climate driver they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in sunspot activity has not led to an increase in global temperatures.

What is most frustrating about believers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of Natural GW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.

It’s almost as if the IPCC hadn’t included solar radiance in their assessment of all natural forcing factors...

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG...

It's almost as if the IPCC only included solar radiance, and no other solar factors. I believe they are finally addressing that issue in the next report, but assigning a low understanding to other solar and cosmic forcings.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

Righto

Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.

AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).

But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.

Standard appeal to authority and consensus. It's almost as if you're a lefty religious fanatic.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Righto

Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.

AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).

But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.

Standard appeal to authority and consensus. It's almost as if you're a lefty religious fanatic.

You do know that under certain circumstances deferring to authority is perfectly valid don't you? For instance when you are unqualified to give an answer or have little knowledge of the subject.

Actually, I take that back, you didn't know that did you?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelogicofscience.com...

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Righto

Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.

AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).

But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.

Standard appeal to authority and consensus. It's almost as if you're a lefty religious fanatic.

You do know that under certain circumstances deferring to authority is perfectly valid don't you? For instance when you are unqualified to give an answer or have little knowledge of the subject.

Actually, I take that back, you didn't know that did you?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelogicofscience.com...

As has been said before about you and that arguement, if one believes in CAGW they don't require qualifications to argue for it, but to argue against it requires an amount of knowledge which is ever shifting to suit your narrative.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Righto

Evolution is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists.

AGW is believed and endorsed by the vast majority of scientists (and all of the world's scientific institutions).

But well done, you've correctly identified the arguments that science and scientists can't answer or hadn't thought of...so it's back to the drawing board I suppose.

Standard appeal to authority and consensus. It's almost as if you're a lefty religious fanatic.

You do know that under certain circumstances deferring to authority is perfectly valid don't you? For instance when you are unqualified to give an answer or have little knowledge of the subject.

Actually, I take that back, you didn't know that did you?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thelogicofscience.com...

As has been said before about you and that arguement, if one believes in CAGW they don't require qualifications to argue for it, but to argue against it requires an amount of knowledge which is ever shifting to suit your narrative.

Again, every sentence you just typed is wrong.