Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

Well, yes. But if you’re wearing the white hat, you are expected to be better than the dark side. Hanson shouldn’t have said it. And there’s a huge difference between dishonestly emphasizing it and ignoring the actual message, and simply making it up. The latter is a far worse offense, in my opinion.

Anyway, I suspect that if things proceed as they are now, we won’t need Hanson to ask for punishment.

We’ll need to provide protection for these guys from the public.

Trying to mix politics and science is like trying to mix politics and religion. You had better be careful what you ask for. If we make a protected political class of scientist, chances are the science will be corrupted and the politics will be rather poor. That’s not to say they cannot mix, there would be no way possible for them not to mix, great care just must be taken as to how they mix.

Unfortunatlly the sciencist of global warming want to call for major economic changes. I think your going to have a hard time to convince the US to go on total war stance until an actual major attack happens, such as Pearl Harbor. The econmics called for by scientist like Hansen is going to be likewise as tough to really convince people to undergo.

Trying to mix politics and science is like trying to mix politics and religion. You had better be careful what you ask for. If we make a protected political class of scientist, chances are the science will be corrupted and the politics will be rather poor.

If we keep political appointees from pressuring scientists, this will corrupt science? You honestly believe that? Science is no different than anything else; you let government bureaucrats rule it and it will be corrupt.

That’s not to say they cannot mix, there would be no way possible for them not to mix, great care just must be taken as to how they mix.

That’s why we should vigorously investigate and prosecute any attempt by any official to change research results.

Unfortunatlly the sciencist of global warming want to call for major economic changes.

There will be major economic changes. Those are already under way, imposed by the marketplace. Others will be imposed by changes in climate. Maybe it’s not too late to alleviate the hit. But that’s a question of what’s politically possible.

I don’t know.

I think your going to have a hard time to convince the US to go on total war stance until an actual major attack happens, such as Pearl Harbor. The econmics called for by scientist like Hansen is going to be likewise as tough to really convince people to undergo.

Probably so. We aren’t very good at dealing with problems, until they really hurt.

Letting scientist set public policy would have the same pitfalls as letting the clergy set it. It would have even bigger once they realize the power they have, and may even make it difficult to pull back on a stance once taken that proves to be less certain than first thought.

One important consideration is if the scientist would have any idea of the total impact of it would be. Even if you don’t like government beaurocrates, there is a reason we have them. Even if they cause a lot of harm, they prevent a lot more of it too. They can help slow down major policy change to see if it is feasible.

We can investigate those happenings, but part of the problem is actually proving them, and then proving they’ve been done with malice. If anything probably a bigger problem would be research that is omitted.

If the market place is able to fully be able to meet the needs of the changing global climate any public policy debate is moot.

The problem with dealing with things in theory and dealing with things in real life is that in real life we are faced with a huge amount of potential problems, that they must be prioritized. To add on to that, we don’t know the nature of every problem. Some problems we care more about than others would. To a point that’s one thing good about specialization. On the other hand, if Global Warming is as bad as some report, it is something that is going to have to impact everyone to a point were it may have to take a center priority. That is very difficult to follow through with if everyone doesn’t feel the pain from it. Besides if we had a major reaction to every possible notion of pain, we’d be paralyzed.

The problem is that Hansen’s computer models were totally corrupt. He wouldn’t let other scientists look at his coding. Then we found out that he was “cherry picking” the data that he used to enter into his model. AND THEN we found that the base stations in the United States that were used to collect weather and temperature data were reading anywhere from one to five degrees high. [NO TELLING how bad the temp data are from stations in third- and fourth-world countries.]

On top of all that, all data suggest the planet has been cooling for almost ten years.

And now the sun is showing fewer sun spots … meaning that the sun is throwing out less radiation (and less energy).

So, Hansen is totally invested in the myth of man-made global warming. And he created a fictional world that some unscrupulous politicians and some scientifically uneducated media types have fastened onto as a way to gain political power.

And they want FAST action before the whole world catches on to the fast one they are trying to pull off. Already, people in Europe are rebelling … because they have been paying the steeply higher taxes for a few years already with the only result being bigger, more intrusive government and lower living standards.

The problem is that Hansen’s computer models were totally corrupt. He wouldn’t let other scientists look at his coding. Then we found out that he was “cherry picking” the data that he used to enter into his model.

Well, that was the story the deniers were peddling, and then it turns out they made it up. The source code has, BTW, been available since September 2007. This graph shows the old “corrupt” data, and the new corrected data:

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hansen-t2.jpg

Notice that there is no change at all in the five-year average, and on a graph this size the difference between the “corrupt” and corrected data is too small to detect.

AND THEN we found that the base stations in the United States that were used to collect weather and temperature data were reading anywhere from one to five degrees high. [NO TELLING how bad the temp data are from stations in third- and fourth-world countries.]

Even it it was true (and no one has so far shown that) these are the same stations that have been used for decades. It doesn’t affect the trend.

On top of all that, all data suggest the planet has been cooling for almost ten years.

Take a look at the graph. Someone’s had a little fun with your trust in them.

And now the sun is showing fewer sun spots … meaning that the sun is throwing out less radiation (and less energy).

I thought the spin was that the increasing temperature was because the sun was putting out more energy. Hard to keep up with the talking points du jour.

Even if you don’t like it, that’s the fact set we have. Making up alternative realities won’t change anything.

Letting scientist set public policy would have the same pitfalls as letting the clergy set it.

Sure. Look at the mess we’re in now, because we let businessmen set public policy. Fact is, any single group will find it impossible to resist the temptation to rig the system if they have control of it.

Scientists are no different. The point is, scientists know what the facts are; what we do about the facts should be a decision made by voters, not scientists, businessmen, or clergy.

One important consideration is if the scientist would have any idea of the total impact of it would be.

Some probably do, but not climatologists. Economists, sociologists, etc. But we have a representative democracy here; those decisions are made by voters and the representatives they elect.

Even if you don’t like government beaurocrates, there is a reason we have them.

Sure. We need government. But we should trim it back every chance we get; it grows like kudzu, and is almost as useful most of the time. Have government, but watch those guys all the time. The reason we have so much corruption at the federal level is directly tied to the recent habit of classifying almost everything as secret. They love it; the less we can see what they are up to, the better they like it. And notice that they have been just as busy trying to keep a better eye on us.

This is precisely the formula for a gradual slide into dictatorship.

Even if they cause a lot of harm, they prevent a lot more of it too. They can help slow down major policy change to see if it is feasible.

It’s what Congress is for. As Washington said, we put legislation into the Senate for the same reason people in his day put hot coffee into a saucer; to cool it.

If the market place is able to fully be able to meet the needs of the changing global climate any public policy debate is moot.

True. The problem is that both government and business are doing their best to keep the market from working. Free enterprise is often the last thing businessmen want.

I don’t think the sky is going to fall soon. But the evidence shows that warming is not going to be good for the United States. And that’s enough to be concerned.

This was just posted on www.climatechangedebate.com

This may be old news to some but I wasn’t aware of it. There is an interview of former Senator Timothy Wirth on Frontline on January 17, 2007. You can find that here:

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html#3

He was the Senator from Colorado until 1993. Then he served in President Clinton’s state department. In 1988, he organized the Senate hearing where Hansen talked about Global Warming. He led the U.S. team at the Kyoto meeting. During the interview he talked about the behind the scenes organization of the hearing. Here is some of what Wirth said in the interview:

“Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.”

"… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …"

The ends justify the means for former Senator Wirth obviously and I would guess for Robert Hansen as well. Certainly for Hansen’s benefactor George Soros. I am surprised that Wirth would admit to what he had done. He seemed proud of it actually. He made the hearing room miserably warm for everyone attending thinking only to make an impression.

The whole interview was very interesting and worth reading.

The interview only solidifies my belief that global warming is nothing more than a propaganda ploy by Hansen, Gore, Wirth and their fellow travelers. Wirth’s use of “disinformation” sullies their reputation because science isn’t about consensus or politics. All it takes is one scientist with the correct hypothesis to destroy consensus and history is full of examples of where the consensus was dead wrong.

The interview only solidifies my belief that global warming is nothing more than a propaganda ploy by Hansen, Gore, Wirth and their fellow travelers.

You chucked all the data, because you didn’t like an interview? Amazing.

Wirth’s use of “disinformation” sullies their reputation because science isn’t about consensus or politics.

Of course science is about consensus. There is no “official” science, or any “decider.” It is always done by consensus of the people who are working in the particular discipline. Very libertarian. Whoever told you different, has no understanding of science.

All it takes is one scientist with the correct hypothesis to destroy consensus and history is full of examples of where the consensus was dead wrong.

Happens from time to time. But more often, it’s incremental. They laughed at Alfred Wegener, but they also laughed at a host of cranks and deniers.

The key is evidence. If you have it, you win, and the biggest rewards in science are for those who overturn big theories. But it’s a high-wire act, with many more failures than successes.

Right now, deniers are a dwindling breed because the evidence is too massive to ignore, even for those with a political axe to grind.

Time to pack it in, and admit the obvious.

Only the theory part of science is about consensus. Proof requires facts, which may confirm the theory, or blow it apart. If the consensus group is wrong based on proof, then they must admit as much.

Facts based on flawed models is not proof. All the graphs I’ve seen show a decline over the past ten years. If the models were accurate, then the temps should still be rising.

If these models were corrupt 20 years ago, where is the evidence they are more accurate now?

As for weather stations, Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/weather_stations/ has done extensive studies on how not to record temps.

As for other evidence of global warning, have the ice caps disappeared yet?

So your going to to tell me that scientist only concern themselves with the facts. Go back and reread the first paragraph of the news article that is apart of the OP. Crimes against humanity doesn’t seem like a scientist only concerned with the facts.

I personally a scientists should have an opinion about policy issues, but once you get away from positive science and more towards normative policy issues care must be maintained. As a matter, anyone who wants to set norms must constantly be under scrutiny.

Scientist may know all the facts, but what are facts? All the facts of science are not truth. Some are more uncertain than others. You’ve got to be very careful, otherwise you could just end up fooling yourself.

The many of the same problems that you feel businessmen have are all the same problem that can happen with scientist. If you ask me it intellectual arrogance to think scientist are inherently anymore impeccable. I’m sure everyone is attempted by the lazy way. I’m sure there are plenty of scientist who could be tempted, to rest on there laurels of their reputation, and not fully investigate their next finding. There are also plenty of businessmen of integrity.

As far as what policy to follow is hardly ever a decision of the voters. I’ll ask you how many policy issues did you vote on the last time you voted? If I recall right, you teach school. How many of the school policies were voted on by the voters? We vote for representatives, who then have people who help them formulate policy that will guide decisions.

I don’t say this to denigrate scientists, they have their role. Scientists are not technicians or computers who just spit out output. Most of the top scientists are rather brilliant. To say that they know facts is rather short changing them. Any given scientific fact may be on a spectrum of uncertainty. At any given time facts may not exactly have a consensus, as if consensus made up truth. They need to be good at problem recognition and solving. Those are some great skills in helping formulate policy, and should be brought in on the process.

The problem though is that there are all kinds of pitfalls. A major one is you can fool yourself into thinking you fulling understand what is going on. Another possible problem is the more one is emotionally invested in a certain position the easier it is to be biased by it.

As far as the government and business keeping the free market from working, I’m sure their are plenty of global warming adovcates who would like to use global warming as a catalyst for more governmental activism in the markets.

Only the theory part of science is about consensus.

Nope. Everything, every theory, (which is the strongest thing in science) is a matter of consensus. There is no approving authority.

Proof requires facts,

Science doesn’t involve proof. Logical certainty can’t be done by induction; science works by inferences from evidence.

Facts based on flawed models is not proof. All the graphs I’ve seen show a decline over the past ten years.

You saw the corrected data. It shows a dramatic rise. Let’s take another look…
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hansen-t2.jpg

If the models were accurate, then the temps should still be rising.

Bingo. And as you see, they are. In fact, the models actually underestimated the rise.

**It used to be that climate scientists worried about how to make the public care about changes that might not happen for a century. Today they have a bigger problem: some of the changes aren’t waiting around that long.

Following the latest projections by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new research shows that models in the report underestimate some changes that are already under way. Sea ice is melting and sea level is rising faster than models had predicted, and one brake on warming, the uptake of CO2 by oceans, appears not to be working as well as scientists had thought.

Results published in Geophysical Research Letters in May show that ice-free summers could be even more likely this century than estimated in February’s IPCC report. Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center led a group that analyzed nearly 60 years of sea ice records from satellites, ships, and airplanes, concluding that ice has disappeared at an average rate of 7.8% per decade since 1953, compared with 2.5% per decade in computer simulations.**
pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/may/science/ee_arcticice.html

If these models were corrupt 20 years ago, where is the evidence they are more accurate now?

See the graph. Note that the difference between “corrupt” and corrected data is indistinguishable at normal resolution.

As for weather stations, Anthony Watts…

Let’s take a look at that data he got…

The first plot shows the 5yr average temperature for the lower 48:- red line is for stations with CRN=1 and CRN=2 (CRN12, the good stations).- green line is for stations with CRN=5 (CRN5, the bad stations).- blue line was downloaded from GISS on Sept 14, 2007 (GISS).
The agreement between the results is very good for all sets.

bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/deniers-rediscover-hockey-stick.html

Surprise. They lied to you yet again.

As for other evidence of global warning, have the ice caps disappeared yet?

Let’s take a look…

**After Antarctica, Greenland’s ice cap contains the second largest mass of frozen freshwater in the world. This new research indicates enough ice loss to cause a measurable rise in sea levels. Quantified conservatively, the study indicates a net loss of roughly 51 cubic kilometers of ice per year from the entirety of the Greenland ice sheet. **
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html

And…
Glaciers in Alaska and neighboring Canada, with a combined area of approximately 90,000 square kilometers (roughly 35,000 square miles), and accounting for about 13 percent of mountain glaciers on Earth, have thinned substantially. Over the last 40 years, thinning has been on the order of 50 to 100 meters (several hundred feet) at lower elevations of glacier occurrence, and about 18 meters (60 feet) at higher elevations.
waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-Glaciers.html

and…

West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm

So your going to to tell me that scientist only concern themselves with the facts.

I suggest you go and read any of the professional literature and get back to me. Let me know what you find.

As a matter, anyone who wants to set norms must constantly be under scrutiny.

That’s what I said.

The many of the same problems that you feel businessmen have are all the same problem that can happen with scientist. If you ask me it intellectual arrogance to think scientist are inherently anymore impeccable.

Science depends on telling the truth. That’s why a single case of professional dishonesty ruins the career of a scientist. Not true of businessmen, um?

I’m sure there are plenty of scientist who could be tempted, to rest on there laurels of their reputation, and not fully investigate their next finding.

Yes, and a few do fail. But there’s a huge risk. If peer review and subsequent investigations don’t support the findings, that scientist is in big trouble.

As far as the government and business keeping the free market from working, I’m sure their are plenty of global warming adovcates who would like to use global warming as a catalyst for more governmental activism in the markets.

Maybe so. But they haven’t been as effective at interfering with the marketplace as businessmen and governments have been.

Al’s correct on his mention of solar data. The relevance of total solar irradiance, which the consensus uses to support it’s stance that solar variation is irrelevant, is in dispute by at least a few solar physicists. The most recent full solar cycle, 23, has lasted longer and produced less sunspots than the prior cycle and cycle 24 is off to a sputtering start. I can’t say I am convinced either way, but I would caution about blindly following a consensus. In my own profession of archaeology there was a consenus view on the peopling of the Americas that prevailed for more than 60 years. However, as more and more data was collected, the concesus began to slowly crack and now the whole subjet is up in the air, a whole generation or two after the issue was declared settled…

Just pointing it out…:wink:

Showing a graph for over the past 130 years does not disprove my point. The trend in the last ten years has been downward. Even NASA’s findings agreed on that.

**It used to be that climate scientists worried about how to make the public care about changes that might not happen for a century. Today they have a bigger problem: some of the changes aren’t waiting around that long.

Following the latest projections by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new research shows that models in the report underestimate some changes that are already under way. Sea ice is melting and sea level is rising faster than models had predicted, and one brake on warming, the uptake of CO2 by oceans, appears not to be working as well as scientists had thought.

Results published in Geophysical Research Letters in May show that ice-free summers could be even more likely this century than estimated in February’s IPCC report. Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center led a group that analyzed nearly 60 years of sea ice records from satellites, ships, and airplanes, concluding that ice has disappeared at an average rate of 7.8% per decade since 1953, compared with 2.5% per decade in computer simulations.**
pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/may/science/ee_arcticice.html

See the graph. Note that the difference between “corrupt” and corrected data is indistinguishable at normal resolution.

When sea ice melts, it adds nothing to the sea level rise. Simple physics. Sea ice displaces as much water volume as it contains. Like when ice melts in a glass of water, the water level doesn’t rise. (Also, see below about sea level rise)

Oh but wait what about the ice on Antarctica? That’s not sea ice. But then there’s this:

worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/21/antarctica-snowfall-increase/

Let’s take a look at that data he got…

bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/deniers-rediscover-hockey-stick.html

Surprise. They lied to you yet again.

How un-biased of you to go to a completely different site to get your little graph. How about going to Watt’s website and actually reading his research.

Let’s take a look…

**After Antarctica, Greenland’s ice cap contains the second largest mass of frozen freshwater in the world. This new research indicates enough ice loss to cause a measurable rise in sea levels. Quantified conservatively, the study indicates a net loss of roughly 51 cubic kilometers of ice per year from the entirety of the Greenland ice sheet. **
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html

And…
Glaciers in Alaska and neighboring Canada, with a combined area of approximately 90,000 square kilometers (roughly 35,000 square miles), and accounting for about 13 percent of mountain glaciers on Earth, have thinned substantially. Over the last 40 years, thinning has been on the order of 50 to 100 meters (several hundred feet) at lower elevations of glacier occurrence, and about 18 meters (60 feet) at higher elevations.
waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-Glaciers.html

and…

West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm

If the glaciers are melting at such a high rate as is claimed, how come the sea levels are not rising at unprecedented rates?

worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/06/slower-sea-level-rise/

Oh wait, they lied right.

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you has been lied to, yet guys like Hansen are so perfect?

Wait, what’s this?

For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz…

Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.

Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science (naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html ) that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue — a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=CB71A459-1F37-4792-AE25-541FCCED0466

Hansen taking money then supporting a candidate? Using extreme scenarios to dramatize climate change? Sure sounds like lying to me. But I thought he was a saint.

Barbarian observes:
You saw the corrected data. It shows a dramatic rise. Let’s take another look…

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hansen-t2.jpg

Showing a graph for over the past 130 years does not disprove my point.

But the section of the graph, showing a sharp rise in temperatures over the last ten years does. Notice the red line, the average temperature, is sharply up. Notice also that the period from 2000 to 2005 had five of the six top record average temperatures.

The trend in the last ten years has been downward. Even NASA’s findings agreed on that.

Read the graph again. They lied to you about that. The data says it’s getting warmer rapidly. BTW, the current denier position is that it’s getting warmer, but the sun is to blame.

**Following the latest projections by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new research shows that models in the report underestimate some changes that are already under way. Sea ice is melting and sea level is rising faster than models had predicted, and one brake on warming, the uptake of CO2 by oceans, appears not to be working as well as scientists had thought.

Results published in Geophysical Research Letters in May show that ice-free summers could be even more likely this century than estimated in February’s IPCC report. Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center led a group that analyzed nearly 60 years of sea ice records from satellites, ships, and airplanes, concluding that ice has disappeared at an average rate of 7.8% per decade since 1953, compared with 2.5% per decade in computer simulations.
pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa…arcticice.html
**

Barbarian observes:
See the graph. Note that the difference between “corrupt” and corrected data is indistinguishable at normal resolution.

When sea ice melts, it adds nothing to the sea level rise…

Ice caps aren’t sea ice; they are on land, and yes, when they melt, the sea rises. Another thing they lied to you about.

And Anarctica isn’t yet a major cause of sea level change, since most of the melt there (unlike Greenland) is on ice shelves that are essentially floating. In fact, because of more humidity caused by melt, one expects more snow to fall in the interior and somewhat offset the melting from glaciers. Up until very recently, that has been the case…

In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302753.html

Barbarian suggests:
Let’s take a look at that data he got…

bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/…key-stick.html

The first plot shows the 5yr average temperature for the lower 48:- red line is for stations with CRN=1 and CRN=2 (CRN12, the good stations).- green line is for stations with CRN=5 (CRN5, the bad stations).- blue line was downloaded from GISS on Sept 14, 2007 (GISS).
The agreement between the results is very good for all sets.

Surprise. They lied to you yet again.

How un-biased of you…

Data is always better than opinion. At any rate, your guy’s own numbers confirm the warming trend. I’d be open his reasoning that the close agreement between data sets isn’t evidence for warming. Tell us about it.

Barbarian suggests:
Let’s take a look…

After Antarctica, Greenland’s ice cap contains the second largest mass of frozen freshwater in the world. This new research indicates enough ice loss to cause a measurable rise in sea levels. Quantified conservatively, the study indicates a net loss of roughly 51 cubic kilometers of ice per year from the entirety of the Greenland ice sheet.
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html

And…
Glaciers in Alaska and neighboring Canada, with a combined area of approximately 90,000 square kilometers (roughly 35,000 square miles), and accounting for about 13 percent of mountain glaciers on Earth, have thinned substantially. Over the last 40 years, thinning has been on the order of 50 to 100 meters (several hundred feet) at lower elevations of glacier occurrence, and about 18 meters (60 feet) at higher elevations.
waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-…-Glaciers.html

and…

West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows
sciencedaily.com/releases…0229075228.htm

If the glaciers are melting at such a high rate as is claimed, how come the sea levels are not rising at unprecedented rates?

They are:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-ts-18.gif

Oh wait, they lied right.

Take a look at the graph. Hard to argue with that kind of fit.

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you has been lied to, yet guys like Hansen are so perfect?

Neither is true. You’re just frustrated and lashing out.

(Swiftboating stuff about Hansen)

Sorry. No bunny trails.

Am I the only one here who thinks Barbarian can’t have a reasoned discussion with those who don’t agree with him. You present links to articles, information, and data which refutes, or at the very least calls into question, AGW. He presents the same graphs over and over and then cops the " you’ve been lied to" bit, which is getting old.

Someone who does not even want to look at all angles of an issue is someone I simply can’t trust. Telling me I’m frustrated because I posted something he didn’t want to know about his hero Hansen, I consider the last straw.

Am I frustrated? Yes, but it’s not for the reasons he thinks.

You’re not the only one, trust me. You should try debating evolution with him some time.

You present links to articles, information, and data which refutes, or at the very least calls into question, AGW. He presents the same graphs over and over and then cops the " you’ve been lied to" bit, which is getting old.

He does the same thing with anti-evolution data. I presented a reference to him once, and rather than research the data, he derided the researcher because the researcher was a Hindu, then branded me a blind idiot who was being led astray by Krishna Consciousness.

Fair and impartial, you know.

Someone who does not even want to look at all angles of an issue is someone I simply can’t trust. Telling me I’m frustrated because I posted something he didn’t want to know about his hero Hansen, I consider the last straw.

Yeah, the “you’re frustrated”, or “you’ve been lied to” bit is one of his favorite dodges. He’s also fond of taking one line out of a reference and using it as a catchphrase, repeating it 75 million times, as an attempt to wear you down and drown you out.

It’s nice to see that he’s still being predictable.

Am I frustrated? Yes, but it’s not for the reasons he thinks.

Don’t be frustrated. There’s a lot of us out here who have connected with His Royal Ego. Join our club, PIDWBO, “Posters In Disagreement With Barbarian’s Opinions”. All you have to do to join is say something that earns you one of his tender mercies as outlined above, delivered, of course, with his usual condescending arrogance. You are certainly eligible now. :slight_smile:

So basically, instead of looking at the data and thinking, or looking at anything that disagrees with your favored sources, you’ve decided to just attack Barbarian, and seek someone to support you in your attack. You claim he’s not looking at all the angles, but are you?

You claimed that the temperature has dropped over the last 10 years, claiming that even NASA says so, but offered no data. He showed data that disproved your claim. You claimed it didn’t. I searched NASA sites to see what their data said. I found no evidence to support your claim. All I found was this which did not support you claim. The only thing that comes close is the one graph showing monthly mean temperature (relative to some mean) over the last 10 years. But even that can only be described as a plateau.

The trends in the data from NASA looks pretty clear, and does not seem to correlate with the data for total solar irradiance, but does seem to correlate with CO2.

I went to the sites you linked, but found no data, just essays and vague descriptions of the data. The only site that seemed to have anything real that could be evaluated was the one complaining about the locations of temperature sensors at some weather stations. Conversely, Barbarian’s sites do contain data, and lots of it.

While I have not studied the issue extensively, and your side may be correct, I think you need to look harder at the sites presented before claiming that Barbarian is the one ignoring the data.

Start with www.surfacestations.org

Baaaadddd data … GIGO …

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.