OT Antarctica gained more ice than lost

nolaegghead said:

Oil prices are dependent largely on the world economy, growth in China and OPEC.

And our domestic non conventional extraction methods. 

No no doubt crony capitalism is not new. I would offer that usually the companies are at least viable and successful. They have many positives to offer down the line. Certainly not one size fits all issue.

JohnInCarolina said:

Fred19Flintstone said:

There hasn't been one shred of proof other than computer models that man made global warming is occurring.  

Science doesn't deal with proof, but rather data.  As to what the data says regarding  measurements of mean global temperature.... yeah.

Except everyone knows they have been manipulating "the data" for decades.  The Earth has been known to go through warming and cooling cycles and we are using "data" for 130 years to say we are going to burn up. According to the "science" community, the Earth is millions of years old, so we take "data" the width of a pinhead on a line thousands of miles long to say the sky is falling.   Sheeessh!!! 

And now we are importing "greenhouse" gasses from India and China and forcing more restrictions on already overburdened businesses and industry out west. 

Lol

onedbguru said:

Except everyone knows they have been manipulating "the data" for decades.  

The data here consists of temperature measurements and recordings from all over the world. This is publicly available information.  To manipulate it you'd have to hack into all sorts of archives maintained by a wide range of different countries, and hope that not a single scientist noticed.    

As to your second point about us only using data from 130 years, that's incorrect too.  We only have recorded temperature data going back that far, but there are proxy data that can be used to reconstruct temperatures much further back.   But all of this is beside the point, because anthropogenic forcing only really picked up in the industrial age.  

You can keep just making stuff up I guess, but facts are stubborn things. 

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Ooo, Wikipedia!

we should all know that computers only do what we order it to do. Quickly, I'll give you that. 

Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts. There are very many hypotheses based upon very few actual facts. Even data is only fact as it pertains to its unique set of circumstances based upon timing, location, human error, etc. among many other factors. People take data and form opinion and hypothesis. These are not to be disregarded nor should there be blindly consumed. I would argue that the threshold for acceptance should be exponentially greater than sceptasism or dismissal. Especially if you are asking for individuals to to be contributors to the cost by threat of force (taxation and regulation). Not very many are opposed to voluntary reasonable personal steps regardless of their views. 

pgprescott said:

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Ooo, Wikipedia!

we should all know that computers only do what we order it to do. Quickly, I'll give you that. 

Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts. There are very many hypotheses based upon very few actual facts. Even data is only fact as it pertains to its unique set of circumstances based upon timing, location, human error, etc. among many other factors. People take data and form opinion and hypothesis. These are not to be disregarded nor should there be blindly consumed. I would argue that the threshold for acceptance should be exponentially greater than sceptasism or dismissal. Especially if you are asking for individuals to to be contributors to the cost by threat of force (taxation and regulation). Not very many are opposed to voluntary reasonable personal steps regardless of their views. 

What about Skynet?

nolaegghead said:

What's astounding is how politicized this issue has gotten on the right.  A wholesale grifting of a large demographic with a conspiracy theory just to gain votes and make money via slashing and burning the future like a berserker.  Even the oil companies are diversifying into alternate energy investments and buy into the predominant scientific analysis for business planning.

You don't see this massive level of scientific ignorance anywhere else in the developed world.

That's true.  It's really only politicized in the US.  Obviously we're the only ones who have it right.  

@DMW F-U TROLL M-EFFER!!!

Relativity - just a theory!

nolaegghead said:

pgprescott said:

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Ooo, Wikipedia!

we should all know that computers only do what we order it to do. Quickly, I'll give you that. 

Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts. There are very many hypotheses based upon very few actual facts. Even data is only fact as it pertains to its unique set of circumstances based upon timing, location, human error, etc. among many other factors. People take data and form opinion and hypothesis. These are not to be disregarded nor should there be blindly consumed. I would argue that the threshold for acceptance should be exponentially greater than sceptasism or dismissal. Especially if you are asking for individuals to to be contributors to the cost by threat of force (taxation and regulation). Not very many are opposed to voluntary reasonable personal steps regardless of their views. 

Now you're just being a troll.  Not a very interesting one either.  These are just platitudes that lack context.  When I read, for example:

"Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts."

or

"Ooo, Wikipedia!"

My eyes roll back in my head and your stock just plummeted like, Enron. Keep on point.

DMW said:

I think I'm gonna go post food pics on a political/science forum.

Wait! You people cook? 

"Numbers and facts and data can be skewed! And scientists are biased!  But here is some science and data which supports my opinion, and an unbiased opinion from a guy on the radio who I agree with!"

Darby_Crenshaw said:

If you don't believe in science, then don't try to use science to back up your argument. Very simple.

You don't get to say that climate scientists don't know anything, and then say "we all know the earth goes through cycles".

Who told you about those cycles?

Um. Climate scientists? 

What I love is the idea that there's a simple explanation for global warming that an entire scientific community has managed to overlook.  Like... the sun.  Or... nature.  

There was an internal newsletter in my company that said water is the leading cause of climate change. Fortunately these don't go to customers.

Edit - it was published by a guy for his little department who's a denier.  Also not a scientist.