OT Antarctica gained more ice than lost

HeavyG said:

nolaegghead said:

hey, didchyaknow witches float?

So do very small rocks.

So don't try to weigh down witches with small rocks  

...as will, inevitably, this thread.

@Braggart love that graphic.  SWMBO suggested I post it when I mentioned this clown show, I just forgot.  Thank you.

bgebrent said:

But through truth and life we must uphold the truth...  I'm really hoping to save on lump given climate change.

This whole climate change thing is effing with my cold smoking plans.  Guess I'll have to plan on using an ice tray to lower from ambient. 

tbst said:

onedbguru said:

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. 

Since all the government data sets have been molested, can we at least see your data sets with substantiation for your claims? It is very easy to scoff off things people have spent millions of man hours working off with a swipe of the keyboard. 

I am astounded at the level of shrillness over the FACT (according to the chart) that the 130 year chart above has a variance of  < 1.5 degrees - cool and warm.  Maybe the warbling of the Earth around the Sun may have something to do with it.  The trajectory The problem with science is that it is hypothesis based on observation and we all don't know what we don't know.  

Getting back to OnTopic - food: Like the other "scientific fact" that eggs are bad for you, wait, no, eggs are good for you,  no ...

 Again.... SHEEESH!!!

DMW said:

theyolksonyou said:

DMW said:

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

Wait! You people cook? 

No, I just search Google images.

You and Steven Raichlen

onedbguru said:

I am astounded at the level of shrillness over the FACT (according to the chart) that the 130 year chart above has a variance of  < 1.5 degrees - cool and warm.  Maybe the warbling of the Earth around the Sun may have something to do with it.  The trajectory The problem with science is that it is hypothesis based on observation and we all don't know what we don't know.  

Getting back to OnTopic - food: Like the other "scientific fact" that eggs are bad for you, wait, no, eggs are good for you,  no ...

 Again.... SHEEESH!!!

If I may postulate from a perspective of assumption and ignorance that the scientific community specializing in using the scientific method for meteorological study, which I provide a description link for your convenience below, would collectively fail to notice and interpret and adjust their theory to "naw, nevermind" unless they had a consensus, and a very strong one at that.  In fact, there is a consensus, of which the physicists studying some of the more esoteric sub-atomic particle and quantum physics fields would be envious of.  They (physics and cosmologists) have much farther to go, obviously.

But from your lazyboy or whatever perch gravity holds you below, I do appreciate noticing that variance.  I'm sure volcanic ash and other natural phenomena would fail to explain it, and I would recommend for the sake of the planet you call them and let them know if you think they missed something.

edit: adding link of methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I'll trust a consensus from a huge global community of scientists before I trust a politician with special interests.    But that's me trying to not be delusional.   Sorry if that offends anyone.  Boy scouts taught me to always be prepared.  If you prepare for something and you're lucky it doesn't happen, that's the best outcome.

This thread has went the

The point is Fred, and his ilk, like to see the world through the anecdotal viewpoint of what they can see, either in a picture, or in their immediate material world.  Like Inhofe holding the snowball as proof in a logical fallacy (fantasy really) that a snapshot of aberrant climate disproves an argument of global scientific study.  And there are people that fall for that.  Sadly.  Because they believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe by others with an agenda moving at a much higher level.

However, the way the fallacy works with the visible material world, works the same with the supernatural where all the evidence is also anecdotal, yet not material or visible.

I'm just being reasonable.  Aberrant weather exists.  It does not disprove, as much as wishful thinking may go, much larger trends. 

nolaegghead said:

The point is Fred, and his ilk, like to see the world through the anecdotal viewpoint of what they can see, either in a picture, or in their immediate material world.  Like Inhofe holding the snowball as proof in a logical fallacy (fantasy really) that a snapshot of aberrant climate disproves an argument of global scientific study.  And there are people that fall for that.  Sadly.  Because they believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe by others with an agenda moving at a much higher level.

However, the way the fallacy works with the visible material world, works the same with the supernatural where all the evidence is also anecdotal, yet not material or visible.

I'm just being reasonable.  Aberrant weather exists.  It does not disprove, as much as wishful thinking may go, much larger trends. 

onedbguru said:

I am astounded at the level of shrillness over the FACT (according to the chart) that the 130 year chart above has a variance of  < 1.5 degrees - cool and warm.  

We're not talking about heating up someone's living room here.   A mean temperature increase of a few degrees C for the entire planet requires a massive amount of energy.   Moreover, as is actually the scientific point behind this entire thread, the heating isn't evenly distributed.