Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[PLC1]

Recent? Mt. St. Helens erupted 31 years ago. Of course all the ice melted there during the eruption, but the fact remains that a new glacier is forming. A glacier can only form when large amounts of snow don't melt during the summer. If the eruption had not happened, then the glacier would be one of many across the world that is growing as opposed to the claim of glaciers worldwide retreating.



Do you ever do historical research? There was a time when eugenics was all the rage and as a scientst, you would have been out in left field if you were not on the bandwagon for eugenics. Of course eugenics wasn't a science. It was a pseudoscience and like climate science, was founded on unproven principles. It was junk science which couldn't stand up to the harsh light of serious examination. Hitler depopularized eugenics when he took the pseudoscience to its logical conclusion with the Jews. History is rife with examples of the consensus of the scientific community being dead wrong. Science is particularly susceptible to group thin and history bears out that claim.




No, I am not going to tell you that it is wrong, but in the early 1960's if you suscribed to plate tectonics, you certainly would not have been part of the consensus. The consensus was completely unimpressed by the theory of plate tectonics and described those who accepted the theory in much the same tone as a certain core group of climate pseudoscientists describe anyone who is sleptical of climate science in general today.



If there is a "consensus on the non existence of quasicrystals", why did this scientist get a Nobel Prize for having discovered them?

He got a nobel because he was right although he spent most of his career labeled a crank. Today, he is credited with the discovery of quasicrystals in 1982, but at the time, he was ostracized for bringing disgrace to his field of research, and nobel lauriates in chemistry of the time called his discovery nonsense and he has lived under that sort of stigma for the past 29 years.

The point being that following the consenseus, espeically in a newish field, or a field where hard, observable, repeatable fact does not exist in abundance puts one in a very tenuous position historically. In 20 years, it will be as hard to find a scientist who admits to being part of the consensus on climate pseudoscience as it is today to find one who believed in eugenics, or laughed at the idea of plate tectonics.

In the case of climate pseudoscience, even the consensus is a manufactured hoax.

OK, now I see where you're going with this. What was once believed by scientists has been challenged successfully in the past, and changed what is believed about a variety of things. That's true. When new facts come to light, then science will change its beliefs. Science is like that, being based on fact and observation and all. We didn't know about quasicrystals, now we do. We didn't know about plate tectonics, and now we do.

We didn't always know about global warming, and now we do.

Most people see that as scientific progress.

You forgot to mention the birds having evolved from dinosaurs hypothesis, once considered unlikely and now accepted by the mainstream. The theory of evolution, however, continues to be accepted as reality.

So far, what you've presented as new facts coming to light to disprove accepted scientific theory is a new glacier forming in a new caldera, Mt. St. Helens, and an anecdote about more open water than expected during one expedition to the Arctic. Doesn't that seem a bit thin as evidence to try to refute a scientific theory?

Particularly when you're trying to say that ice melting all around the globe is not due to warmer temperatures.

 

[palerider]

We didn't always know about global warming, and now we do.

No, we have known about climate cycles for a very long time. Placing the blame for the current cycle on man as a result of his CO2 emissions is a new thing and remains unsupported by even the smallest piece of hard, observable evidence. There is one gas within the atmosphere that actually has the capacity to trap and retain heat and that gas is water vapor. No political power could be gained by blaming water vapor so a gas that has no capacity to trap and retain heat, but which is a byproduct of capitalism is blamed.

Most people see that as scientific progress.

Again, most people lack the education required to actually look at the science so as in past times, simply jumped on the most popular bandwagon hoping that their chosen scientist was right. As history shows, that is seldom the way it works out. Scientific progress happens when actual observable and repeatable facts guide science to a position of knowledge. That is not what is happening in climate science.

You forgot to mention the birds having evolved from dinosaurs hypothesis, once considered unlikely and now accepted by the mainstream. The theory of evolution, however, continues to be accepted as reality.

That, like climate science lacks any real evidence in support and like climate science is taken by those who accept the claims on faith rather than any hard evidence.

So far, what you've presented as new facts coming to light to disprove accepted scientific theory is a new glacier forming in a new caldera, Mt. St. Helens, and an anecdote about more open water than expected during one expedition to the Arctic. Doesn't that seem a bit thin as evidence to try to refute a scientific theory?

What I have presented is hard, observable indisputable scientific fact. What have you, or anyone else for that matter presented in support of the claim that man's CO2 emissions are driving the global climate? To date, you have presented nothing and for all the billions spent by climate science, not a single shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence exists in support of the hypothesis and to date, neither you, nor anyone in climate science has stated a physical law that supports and predicts the greenhouse hypothesis upon which AGW alarmism is based. And you call the evidence I have presented thin?

Particularly when you're trying to say that ice melting all around the globe is not due to warmer temperatures.

Is this the first time ice has melted? And ice is not melting "all around the globe" as you like to claim. The fact is that the antarctic ice sheet is growing at record levels and glaciers all over the earth are advancing. The fact is that ice is both melting and advancing all over the globe. That in and of itself calls the greenhouse hypothesis as promoted by alarmists into question as CO2 is well distributed throuhout the atmosphere and should be causing warming (if the hypothesis is true) everywhere. That is demonstrably not the case.

So again, can you offer up a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes a real link between the activities of man and the changing climate and can you name a physical law that supports and predicts the hypothesis. It is an easy question, why are you unable to answer?

 

[PLC1]

No, we have known about climate cycles for a very long time. Placing the blame for the current cycle on man as a result of his CO2 emissions is a new thing and remains unsupported by even the smallest piece of hard, observable evidence. There is one gas within the atmosphere that actually has the capacity to trap and retain heat and that gas is water vapor. No political power could be gained by blaming water vapor so a gas that has no capacity to trap and retain heat, but which is a byproduct of capitalism is blamed.

Focus, focus! Before we can establish whether CO2 is cause, we have to verify that warming is real. Why find a cause for what is not happening?

Again, most people lack the education required to actually look at the science so as in past times, simply jumped on the most popular bandwagon hoping that their chosen scientist was right. As history shows, that is seldom the way it works out. Scientific progress happens when actual observable and repeatable facts guide science to a position of knowledge. That is not what is happening in climate science.

You're good up to the last sentence.

What I have presented is hard, observable indisputable scientific fact. What have you, or anyone else for that matter presented in support of the claim that man's CO2 emissions are driving the global climate? To date, you have presented nothing and for all the billions spent by climate science, not a single shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence exists in support of the hypothesis and to date, neither you, nor anyone in climate science has stated a physical law that supports and predicts the greenhouse hypothesis upon which AGW alarmism is based. And you call the evidence I have presented thin?

Focus. Again, you've jumped from issue #1 to issue #2.

Is this the first time ice has melted?

No, of course not. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times over the eons.
just as it is warming now.

And ice is not melting "all around the globe" as you like to claim. The fact is that the antarctic ice sheet is growing at record levels and glaciers all over the earth are advancing.

Part of that is true. We discussed the increase in part of the Antarctic before. The cause is increased precipitation in a place that is still too cold for the ice to melt.
The rest of it is simply not true.

The fact is that ice is both melting and advancing all over the globe.

No, the fact is that a lot more is melting than is forming.

That in and of itself calls the greenhouse hypothesis as promoted by alarmists into question as CO2 is well distributed throuhout the atmosphere and should be causing warming (if the hypothesis is true) everywhere. That is demonstrably not the case.

Focus, focus! Now, you've jumped to issue #2 and issue #3. Is the Earth warming or not? If not, then why look for a cause?

So again, can you offer up a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes a real link between the activities of man and the changing climate and can you name a physical law that supports and predicts the hypothesis. It is an easy question, why are you unable to answer?

Once again, focus....is the Earth in a warming cycle?

No wonder you're confused about global warming. You keep switching from one issue to another.

Since you're asking for hard evidence for issue #1, here is a non government source that supports the theory that the Earth is getting warmer:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html
Glaciers Melting Worldwide, Study Finds

Like a canary in a coal mine, the dwindling of the glaciers is visible evidence that the earth really is getting hotter.
"Receding and wasting glaciers are a chief telltale sign that global climate change is real and accelerating," said Jeffrey Kargel, a glacier expert with the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona.

 

[dogtowner]

Since you're asking for hard evidence for issue #1, here is a non government source that supports the theory that the Earth is getting warmer:
Glaciers Melting Worldwide, Study Finds

so who is lying,

these guys... glaciers not melting

or these guys... glaciers melting

 

[palerider]

Focus, focus! Before we can establish whether CO2 is cause, we have to verify that warming is real. Why find a cause for what is not happening?

Warming is real. Cooling is real. The fact is that we don't know which is happening because the margin of error in our records is to gross for such a determination. At this point, it really doesn't matter either way, because a cadre of unscrupulous pseudoscientists, in concert with an eager media has made CO2 the culprit whether it is or isn't.

You're good up to the last sentence.

I am good up to and including the last sentence. Of course, you could prove me wrong in a flash by presenting one piece of hard, observable, repeatable evidence gathered by climate science that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. We both know that you can't and we both know that the last sentence is the truth.

Focus. Again, you've jumped from issue #1 to issue #2.

None of your silly numbers is the issue. The issue is that no physical law supports, or predicts the mechanisms of AGW as described by warmists. Your silly numbers are no more than straw men of your own fabrication.

No, of course not. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times over the eons.
just as it is warming now.

Is it warming or is it cooling? How much of either and what is the margin of error of the database upon which you make the claim?

Part of that is true. We discussed the increase in part of the Antarctic before. The cause is increased precipitation in a place that is still too cold for the ice to melt.
The rest of it is simply not true.

All of antarctica is too cold for the ice to melt. The average summertime temperature in antarctica is 20F. As to glaciers advancing all over the earth, of course it is true. Unlike you, I actually do the research before I say a thing. Here is just a small bit of a partial list of presently advancing glaciers.

Ålfotbreen Glacier - Norway
Nigardsbreen Glacier - Norway
Jostefonn Glacier - Norway
Helm Glacier - Canada
Place Glacier - Canada
Mt. Blanc - France (this one has nearly doubled in size in the past 4 years)
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier - Ecuador
Presena Glacier - Italy
Silvretta Glacier - Switzerland
Abramov Glacier - Kirghiztan
Maali Glacier - Russia (this one is really taking off)
Berlingske Glacier - Greenland (some glaciers in Greenland are advancing as much as 7 kilometers per year)'
Pio XI Glacier - Chile
All of the glaciers in New Zealand are growing
Perito Moreno Glacier - Argentina (this one is advancing 7 feet per day)
El glaciar del Infierno - Spain
Hubbard Glacier - Alaska (advancing 7 feet per day)
Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier - Washington (advancing 3 feet per day)
All 7 glaciers on Mt. Shasta - California
More than 100 new glaciers have been discovered in the Rocky Mountain Park in Colorado
Nisqually Glacier - Washington

I could go on and on with this list but what's the point? Glaciers don't grow unless snows during the winter don't melt during the summer. My list pretty much covers the globe.

No, the fact is that a lot more is melting than is forming.

I think the fact is that your information is outdated.

Focus, focus! Now, you've jumped to issue #2 and issue #3. Is the Earth warming or not? If not, then why look for a cause?

Your "issues" are strawmen and don't cover the possibilities. They are the pointless whinings of someone who can't defend his position.

Once again, focus....is the Earth in a warming cycle?

Is it? How would you know. The margin of error in the data base is larger than any temperature increase being claimed and the satellite record which isn't subject to built in biases such as urban heat islands doesn't show the same warming as the ground record.

No wonder you're confused about global warming. You keep switching from one issue to another.

Says the guy who can't answer a single simple question. I am afraid that you have lost this discussion since you can't offer up a single bit of hard, observed evidence that supports the idea of man made climate change.

Since you're asking for hard evidence for issue #1, here is a non government source that supports the theory that the Earth is getting warmer:

Glaciers Melting Worldwide, Study Finds

But glaciers are also advancing worldwide. By the way, did you notice that your "proof" was an article written in 2002? 10 years ago? Is that the best you can do? Get with the program. New glaciers are being formed and old ones are advancing today. Do advancing glaciers act as canaries in a coal mine also heralding a cooling globe?

One other thing, nothing about that article or the study provides any hard evidence that man is responsible. It is all based on assumptions.

Now, can you, or can you not provide a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate?

 

[Gipper]

Now, can you, or can you not provide a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate?

You have asked that question of our pot loving friend multiple times and yet, he has not once tried to answer it.

 

[PLC1]

so who is lying,

these guys... glaciers not melting

or these guys... glaciers melting

I'd be more likely to believe the link I gave above as being an entity without a political agenda, but, of course you would not. As for your "Glaciers not melting" link, which shows pictures of the Gangotri glacier in the Himalayas having advanced a few feet in a carefully selected four year period, I'd be surprised to find that there isn't a political agenda there. in fact, a little bit of research on that particular glacier shows this:

and, anyone who really is interested, could read about it here.

but, that's just NASA, and not a blogger, so I'm sure you'll dismiss it.

 

[PLC1]

Warming is real. Cooling is real. The fact is that we don't know which is happening because the margin of error in our records is to gross for such a determination. At this point, it really doesn't matter either way, because a cadre of unscrupulous pseudoscientists, in concert with an eager media has made CO2 the culprit whether it is or isn't.



I am good up to and including the last sentence. Of course, you could prove me wrong in a flash by presenting one piece of hard, observable, repeatable evidence gathered by climate science that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. We both know that you can't and we both know that the last sentence is the truth.



None of your silly numbers is the issue. The issue is that no physical law supports, or predicts the mechanisms of AGW as described by warmists. Your silly numbers are no more than straw men of your own fabrication.



Is it warming or is it cooling? How much of either and what is the margin of error of the database upon which you make the claim?



All of antarctica is too cold for the ice to melt. The average summertime temperature in antarctica is 20F. As to glaciers advancing all over the earth, of course it is true. Unlike you, I actually do the research before I say a thing. Here is just a small bit of a partial list of presently advancing glaciers.

Ålfotbreen Glacier - Norway
Nigardsbreen Glacier - Norway
Jostefonn Glacier - Norway
Helm Glacier - Canada
Place Glacier - Canada
Mt. Blanc - France (this one has nearly doubled in size in the past 4 years)
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier - Ecuador
Presena Glacier - Italy
Silvretta Glacier - Switzerland
Abramov Glacier - Kirghiztan
Maali Glacier - Russia (this one is really taking off)
Berlingske Glacier - Greenland (some glaciers in Greenland are advancing as much as 7 kilometers per year)'
Pio XI Glacier - Chile
All of the glaciers in New Zealand are growing
Perito Moreno Glacier - Argentina (this one is advancing 7 feet per day)
El glaciar del Infierno - Spain
Hubbard Glacier - Alaska (advancing 7 feet per day)
Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier - Washington (advancing 3 feet per day)
All 7 glaciers on Mt. Shasta - California
More than 100 new glaciers have been discovered in the Rocky Mountain Park in Colorado
Nisqually Glacier - Washington

I could go on and on with this list but what's the point? Glaciers don't grow unless snows during the winter don't melt during the summer. My list pretty much covers the globe.



I think the fact is that your information is outdated.



Your "issues" are strawmen and don't cover the possibilities. They are the pointless whinings of someone who can't defend his position.



Is it? How would you know. The margin of error in the data base is larger than any temperature increase being claimed and the satellite record which isn't subject to built in biases such as urban heat islands doesn't show the same warming as the ground record.



Says the guy who can't answer a single simple question. I am afraid that you have lost this discussion since you can't offer up a single bit of hard, observed evidence that supports the idea of man made climate change.

Since you're asking for hard evidence for issue #1, here is a non government source that supports the theory that the Earth is getting warmer:


But glaciers are also advancing worldwide. By the way, did you notice that your "proof" was an article written in 2002? 10 years ago? Is that the best you can do? Get with the program. New glaciers are being formed and old ones are advancing today. Do advancing glaciers act as canaries in a coal mine also heralding a cooling globe?

One other thing, nothing about that article or the study provides any hard evidence that man is responsible. It is all based on assumptions.

Now, can you, or can you not provide a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate?

Of course I can, and have.

The only way you can possibly continue to maintain that the average temperature of the Earth is not, in fact, increasing is to deny hard evidence, so I expect you will deny what I've presented, then claim I haven't presented any.

Taking the first example you gave above and pasting it in my search window, I came up with this:

During the last century glaciers in Norway retreated as glaciers in other parts of the world. However, in the 1990s many Norwegian glaciers advanced as a result of several winters in a row with precipitation above normal. During the last four years, however, Norwegian glaciers have decreased significantly, shrinking both in volume and length. Several consecutive years of little winter precipitation, and record-warm summers in 2002 and 2003, have taken their toll.

See how easy it is to debunk your claims?

I'm sure that I could do the same with any one of the glaciers you've mentioned above.

What is difficult is to change your mind, and I'm not going to even try that. You have succeeded in convincing the Gipper of what he wanted to believe all along, but haven't reallly presented any hard evidence nor refuted any that I've provided.

But, since you're supporting absurdity, how could you?

 

[dogtowner]

I'd be more likely to believe the link I gave above as being an entity without a political agenda, but, of course you would not.

the snip you used was quoting USGS (attribute in the following paragraph), a government ergo political entity and certainly not sans an agenda.

As for your "Glaciers not melting" link, which shows pictures of the Gangotri glacier in the Himalayas having advanced a few feet in a carefully selected four year period, I'd be surprised to find that there isn't a political agenda there. in fact, a little bit of research on that particular glacier shows this:

and, anyone who really is interested, could read about it here.

but, that's just NASA, and not a blogger, so I'm sure you'll dismiss it.

first few hits on Google, I'd read about it before when it came out. NASA has already been implicated in sexing up data though they have tried redeeming itself after being caught.

And when the same guys who lied about those glaciers to begin with have no credibility refuting it.

 

[PLC1]

the snip you used was quoting USGS (attribute in the following paragraph), a government ergo political entity and certainly not sans an agenda.



first few hits on Google, I'd read about it before when it came out. NASA has already been implicated in sexing up data though they have tried redeeming itself after being caught.

And when the same guys who lied about those glaciers to begin with have no credibility refuting it.

I'm referring to the National Geographic site I linked to further up.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm referring to the National Geographic site I linked to further up.

yes the article was Nat Geo but I'm not sure I'd claim they are devoid of political agenda.

According to their 2004 IRS Form 990s available on GuideStar (free registration required), they had income of $506 million. Of this, the biggest parts were $262 million from "Program service revenue," $177 million from "Membership dues and assessments" (i.e. subscriptions) $10 million from donations and government grants, and the rest from investments and asset sales.

 

[PLC1]

yes the article was Nat Geo but I'm not sure I'd claim they are devoid of political agenda.

so, 2% of their income is from government grants, and therefore they're not to be trusted.

But, some guy writing about "warmers" is credible.

Sure.

 

[dogtowner]

so, 2% of their income is from government grants, and therefore they're not to be trusted.

But, some guy writing about "warmers" is credible.

Sure.

you suggested that NG was free of agenda I just pointed out otherwise. pretty risky sugesting an y organization is free of agenda. regarding the things being reported in either link, the local folks who have a real interest in these glaciers owing to their location on the planet and who have no credibility issues just may be m ore believable than... others.

 

[PLC1]

you suggested that NG was free of agenda I just pointed out otherwise. pretty risky sugesting an y organization is free of agenda. regarding the things being reported in either link, the local folks who have a real interest in these glaciers owing to their location on the planet and who have no credibility issues just may be m ore believable than... others.

The agenda of the National Geographic is to sell magazines.

 

[palerider]

I'd be more likely to believe the link I gave above as being an entity without a political agenda

Aside from the fact that your article is more than a decade old, you are kidding, right? The US Geological Survey and Ohio State University do not have a political agenda? Where does thier funding come from and what happens to that funding if there is no impending crisis?