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

[palerider]

Of course I can, and have.

Don't lie. Lying only brings the weakness of your argument into sharp relief. If you had, you would have re posted the evidence I asked for rather than simply claiming to have done it at some point in the murky past.

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.

This really is an article of faith for you, isn't it? It must be, because you clearly don't have the first clue when it comes to the science. You believe that a greenhouse effect is the only way to maintain the average temperature of earth? Is that really the only way or is that simply what you have been told?

NEWSFLASH!!!! The temperature of the earth can be rationally, and reliably explained by the ideal gas laws and adbiatic pressure. How do you suppose a planet like jupiter or saturn maintains a temperature with atmospheres of hydrogen and helium and not a whif of so called greenhouse gasses? Look to the ideal gas laws and adbiatic pressure. Astrophysicists have been predicting temperatures on the various planets for decades without the need to incorporate a fictitious greenhouse effect.

The science is a complete mystery to you and you choose your side based on your political leanings.

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

Again, a very old article. Here is some more recent PEER REVIEWED data:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Winkler/Chinnetal-1.pdf

Annual mass balance data are available from the early 1960s for six glaciers located on a W–E profile across southern Norway. These data show an increase of the glacier mass of the western glaciers (Ålfotbreen, Nigardsbreen), especially since 1988

And here, from the Norwegian Water and Energy Resource Directorate who keep close tabs on the nation's glaciers.
http://www.nve.no/no/vann-og-vassdr...---mer-sno-enn-normalt-pa-breene-i-sor-norge/

Vinteren 2008 - mer snø enn normalt på breene i Sør-Norge13.02.2009 | 15:01

Målinger NVE har gjort på åtte breer i Sør-Norge viser at årets snømengder er 10-30 prosent over gjennomsnittet. Mest snø ble målt på Ålfotbreen i Nordfjord.

NVE målte snømengde på åtte breer i Sør-Norge og to breer i Nord-Norge. Vårens målinger viste at det kom 10-30 prosent mer snø enn normalt på breene i Sør-Norge. På Nigardsbreen i Jostedalen, som har vært målt siden 1962, ble det målt 127 prosent av normal snømengde. Største snømengde ble det målt på Ålfotbreen i Nordfjord der det i enkelte områder på breen var mer enn 10 meter snø. På breene i Nord-Norge kom det mindre snø enn vanlig sist vinter. Langfjordjøkelen i Vest-Finnmark fikk bare 75 prosent av normal snømengde.
I perioden fra 2001 og fram til 2006 var noen av vintrene svært snøfattig og samtidig var det flere rekordvarme somre. Dette førte til at breene i Norge minket. De to siste årene har det kommet mer snø enn vanlig på breene i Sør-Norge.
Også utenfor breene har det flere steder vært snørikt. I år hadde uvanlig store områder i Sør-Norge mer snø enn normalen. I alle fjellområder, og da særlig øst for vannskillet, var det betydelig mer snø enn normalen gjennom store deler av vinteren. I Nord- og i Midt-Norge derimot, var det stort sett noe mindre snø enn normalen, med unntak av grensetraktene i Sør- Nordland, indre Troms og på Finnmarksvidda.

Translation:

In the winter of 2008 - more snow than normal glaciers in southern Norway

13.02.2009 | 3:01 p.m.

Measurements NVE has done in eight glaciers in southern Norway show that this year's snowfall is 10-30 percent above average. Most snow was measured on Ålfotbreen in Nordfjord.

NVE measured the snow on eight glaciers in southern Norway and two glaciers in northern Norway. Our measurements showed that there were 10-30 percent more snow than normal glaciers in southern Norway. On the glacier in glacier, which has been measured since 1962, it was measured 127 percent of normal snowfall. The largest snowfall was measured at Ålfotbreen in Nordfjord where in some areas on the glacier was more than 10 feet of snow. The glaciers in northern Norway got less snow than usual last winter. Langfjordjøkelen in West Finnmark received only 75 percent of normal snowfall.

In the period from 2001 up to 2006, some winters very little snow, and while there were more record hot summers. This led to the glaciers in Norway decreased. The last two years there has been more snow than usual the glaciers in southern Norway.

Also outside the glaciers have several places been snowy. This year had unusually large areas of southern Norway, more snow than normal. In all mountain areas, especially east of the watershed, there were significantly more snow than normal for much of the winter. In North and Central Norway, however, it was mostly less snow than normal, with the exception of border region in South England, inner Troms and Finnmark plateau.

Even older peer reviewed data show that glacier advancing.



http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h09/Reading list/Norwegian mountain glaciers in the past, present and future.pdf

See how easy it is to debunk your claims?

You haven't debunked anything. All you have shown is that your data is way out of date and you don't know the first thing about the actual science.

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

What, drag old outdated data forward in an attempt to prove an invalid point? Your problem is that you don't do the research. You apparently don't know how and therefore simply accept the first thing you read from anyone who tells you what you want to hear.

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.

My mind is easy to change. All you need do is show some hard, observable, repeatable proof that man is responsible for the changing global climate. Thus far, you haven't even come close. In fact, you have failed spectacularly.

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

Again, the laws of physics support me; and you still haven't provided even the smallest shred of actual evidence that man is in any way responsible for the changing global climate. If you believe that you have, then you know even less than I have given you credit for. I am afraid that it is you who is absurd and every word you write proves it.

 

[palerider]

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.

Where does the rest of their funding come from? Are you under the impression that government is the only organization with a political agenda?

You can view thier tax returns at the link below and their records seem to indicate that much of thier funding comes from sources other than magazine subscriptions and membership dues.

http://www2.guidestar.org/DisplayMessage.aspx

 

[palerider]

The agenda of the National Geographic is to sell magazines.

If you believe that, then you are very naive.

 

[Gipper]

If you believe that, then you are very naive.

BINGO!!!

It sure does show a great deal of naivety.

I bet our friend and his kind believes the NY Times, Newsweek, Time, etc have no agenda other than to sell their newspapers and magazines. This goes to the heart of the problem in America today. Some believe the nonsense they read from unreliable biased sources. This is why many Americans and particularly liberals are misinformed. They believe lies presented to them by news sources with a HUGE left wing agenda.

If the American media sought to present only the truth, liberalism could not exist.

 

[palerider]

If the American media sought to present only the truth, liberalism could not exist.

No, it would exist; like the Klan exists, and numerous other far fringe on either side of the political spectrum exist. Liberalism would exist, it just wouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Gipper]

No, it would exist; like the Klan exists, and numerous other far fringe on either side of the political spectrum exist. Liberalism would exist, it just wouldn't be taken seriously.

Okay I can accept that.

Liberalism not being taken seriously would be a wonderful thing. Imagine how great our nation would be if this were so.

 

[dogtowner]

The agenda of the National Geographic is to sell magazines.

sell magazines to who ? you always play to your audience. and that is n ot limited to pre-teen boys on the hunt for pictures of boobies. : )

 

[PLC1]

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?

It's the National Geographic Magazine from Thrusday, october 28, 2010.

 

[PLC1]

sell magazines to who ? you always play to your audience. and that is n ot limited to pre-teen boys on the hunt for pictures of boobies. : )

that sort of magazine is out to sell to a particular audience, of course, teen boys who will be sorely disappointed when they see their first real unretouched female body.

 

[palerider]

It's the National Geographic Magazine from Thrusday, october 28, 2010.

The magazine article specifically names those two entities and if you believe that national geographic is a non political entity with no agenda, you are further out there than the average bear.

 

[palerider]

that sort of magazine is out to sell to a particular audience, of course, teen boys who will be sorely disappointed when they see their first real unretouched female body.

If you really are unaware of the political agenda of national geographic and the bias that they exhibit, one need only look as far as the writings of those who think like yourself in thier defense of national geographic. Here is a reasonable place to start.
http://climatecart.wordpress.com/climate-change-as-a-threat-to-nature/

National Geographic has taken up the mantle of conveying this message to the public. It is clear from the two maps I have focused on, and the applets in which they are found, that National Geographic really has changed from a non-partisan, non-controversial magazine to one with a voice and political agenda.

By the way, I understand your bowing out of our ongoing discussion, but I thought that you would at least address, and perhaps apologize for the bald faced lie that you told on the public board.

 

[palerider]

I saw this short statement on the mechanics of global warming and it seems to about sum the whole issue up in 5 easy to understand and verify points.

http://www.real-science.com/understanding-mechanics-global-warming

The mechanics behind global warming are really quite simple.

1. Governments pay people posing as scientists billions of dollars to lie about CO2. This allows governments to confiscate huge amounts of money from the people they govern, in the form of taxes and fees. It is a win-win situation symbiotic relationship.
2. Insurance companies get an even better deal. Fraudsters posing as scientists lying about CO2, allow them to raise insurance premiums – and the insurance companies don’t even have to pay for the research.
3. Government passes laws requiring people to buy even more insurance, based on lies generated by fraudsters posing as climate scientists.
4. Newspapers sell by frightening people, so the scary stories generated by criminals posing as climate scientists – are exactly what the criminals posing as journalists want to write about.
5. Net result is that government and insurance companies get to steal trillions of dollars, while pretending they are saving cute baby Polar Bears. This allows criminals posing as legislators to get re-elected – by the very people they stealing from.

Follow the money.

 

[PLC1]

OMG! National Geographic has a political agenda, and is therefore not to be trusted, but "Realscience" is unbiased and a reliable source of information. Of course, NASA is another part of the great conspiracy to fool us into thinking that the Earth is actually getting warmer.

no wonder you believe nonsense.

Now, you accused me of a "bald faced lie". Specifically, which of my easily verifiable and totally correct statements are you labeling as such? Just in case anyone with an open mind is reading this exchange, I'd like to know just how to respond to that absurd and unsupportable accusation.

 

[palerider]

OMG! National Geographic has a political agenda, and is therefore not to be trusted, but "Realscience" is unbiased and a reliable source of information. Of course, NASA is another part of the great conspiracy to fool us into thinking that the Earth is actually getting warmer.

Here we go. You can't produce even the smallest shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence to support what you believe, neither can you name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and the cornerstone for AGW so now you are going to go about wringing your hands and erecting strawmen to joust.

By the way, the mechanics behind global warming that real science provided are hard, observable, verifiable fact, unlike the smoke and mirrors you believe in.

no wonder you believe nonsense.

Well, at least one of us is operating from a position of belief. Alas, it isn't me. I am only swayed by facts and physical laws when the topic is science. I can name multiple physical laws that state explicitly that AGW as described by warmists simply is not possible and can do the math necessary to prove it. Want to do some math?

Now, you accused me of a "bald faced lie".

The one in which you claimed to have provided any hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. If you were claiming to have presented such evidence, then you have lied.

Specifically, which of my easily verifiable and totally correct statements are you labeling as such?

None of your statements make a connection between the activities of man and a changing global climate.

Just in case anyone with an open mind is reading this exchange, I'd like to know just how to respond to that absurd and unsupportable accusation.

I don't make absurd accusations. I, unlike you, only make claims I can substantiate.

 

[PLC1]

Here we go. You can't produce even the smallest shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence to support what you believe,

I did provide hard, observed evidence that the average temperature of the Earth was increasing. All you provided were a few anecdotes, then claimed that glaciers were actually growing. I showed that they are retreating over time.

neither can you name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and the cornerstone for AGW so now you are going to go about wringing your hands and erecting strawmen to joust.

I haven't gotten to that one yet. Before we can discuss a cause of warming, first we have to agree that there is warming. Why try to find a cause for something you say isn't happening?

By the way, the mechanics behind global warming that real science provided are hard, observable, verifiable fact, unlike the smoke and mirrors you believe in.

I provided hard real science showing that the measured temperatures are of a real warming, not just a margin of error. Let's stick to one issue at a time.

Well, at least one of us is operating from a position of belief. Alas, it isn't me. I am only swayed by facts and physical laws when the topic is science. I can name multiple physical laws that state explicitly that AGW as described by warmists simply is not possible and can do the math necessary to prove it. Want to do some math?

So, you're now saying that it is not possible that the Earth is warming, while at the same time saying that it has warmed and cooled many times over the eons?

The one in which you claimed to have provided any hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. If you were claiming to have presented such evidence, then you have lied.

I haven't made such a claim. First, we have to establish the reality of global warming before trying to provide evidence of a link between human activities and what you are claiming doesn't exist.

None of your statements make a connection between the activities of man and a changing global climate.

Of course not. That's another issue. The way this discussion is going, we'll never get past the "It's not happening" discussion.

I don't make absurd accusations. I, unlike you, only make claims I can substantiate.

OK, then let's see you substantiate the claim that the average temperature of the Earth is not increasing.

And, please, no more wandering off to other topics. That is becoming tiresome.