Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's about the funniest thing I've seen.
I heard this guy on a local talk radio station and my son and I couldn't stop laughing, kinda reminds me of the MMGW cultists honestly...all conspiracy and doom and gloom.

And here I thought you were the one who believed in global conspiracies to hide the truth.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

The serious scientists are frustrated by the shallow arguments of the pom Pom cheer leaders/groupies of the prattling warmists. Typically represented by your journalist mate and Professor Tim Flannery etc. Every country has them. This is why the science isn't settled and the warmists just can't get the scientific traction they crave.

This is complete fantasy. 97% of climate scientists agree.

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

[SailOar]

Climate change will hit some Florida reefs sooner than expected, might trigger annual bleaching| Miami Herald

Parts of Florida’s vast coral reefs, including a pristine tract in the Dry Tortugas, might get seared by climate change as early as 2030 — about a dozen years sooner than scientists previously projected.


And that could mean that coral bleaching — a whitening that can be damaging and potentially deadly to colorful corals — might become an annual event in the Tortugas west of Key West but also in the middle Keys and reefs south of Turkey Point popular with divers.


The prediction comes from a just-released study by National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration climate scientists, who used a supercomputer to crunch piles of data on sea temperatures around the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean already identified as vulnerable to bleaching outbreaks. Their findings not only confirmed what they already knew — bleaching could be widespread by mid-century — but revealed it might start to show sooner in some areas than others, including swathes off the South Florida coast.
The findings are important because scientists consider reefs an important earlier indicator of more serious trouble.

“They’re the canary in a coal mine,” said the study’s lead author, Ruben van Hooidonk, a University of Miami coral expert and climate scientist at NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

Jack, copy and paste of links, txt, Utube etc is merely a lazy approach to the argument. Yes I am a skeptic. I read, I consider, I listen ,I look around me. Like just about everyone. I am far from convinced.
The serious scientists are frustrated by the shallow arguments of the pom Pom cheer leaders/groupies of the prattling warmists. Typically represented by your journalist mate and Professor Tim Flannery etc. Every country has them. This is why the science isn't settled and the warmists just can't get the scientific traction they crave.
The more radical the theories become, the more data is interfered with, the more people screeching the science is settled, the more the considered middle becomes skeptic. Summer is coming here. Each day is warmer than the last. Towards the end of September the reverse will happen. Just like it always does.
If you firmly believe in your position then be a bit more considered and disciplined and you may make better headway.

A whole lot of unsubstantiated opinion. That epitomizes intellectual laziness. Go do some research and when you find some evidence, present it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

The serious scientists are frustrated by the shallow arguments of the pom Pom cheer leaders/groupies of the prattling warmists. Typically represented by your journalist mate and Professor Tim Flannery etc. Every country has them. This is why the science isn't settled and the warmists just can't get the scientific traction they crave.

Not one single science academy anywhere on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Climate change will hit some Florida reefs sooner than expected, might trigger annual bleaching| Miami Herald

Key word, "MIGHT".

Oh yeah, settled science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

Jack, copy and paste of links, txt, Utube etc is merely a lazy approach to the argument.
...

If you firmly believe in your position then be a bit more considered and disciplined and you may make better headway.

Yes Jackdale, let's take some lessons from the anti-MMGW side here on CF:

• Reviewing evidence is tedious. Simply skim the talking points of whatever media outlet agrees the most with your preferred viewpoint. and parrot them as a commonly-held truth.
• If someone is tasteless enough to quote something or post a link, simply Google another one that says the converse. On the anti-MMGW side, many conservative think-tanks, with support from the fossil-fuel lobby, have helpfully compiled several sources of plausible counter-arguments
• Don't forget to attack the source. If the subject-matter experts are in agreement about something, attack the subject-matter experts. All's fair, remember.
• In any discussion of a complex matter among nonspecialists, dogmatic repetition of popular tropes, regardless of veracity, is surprisingly effective. Your opponent may expend energy to prove the falsehood of your allegation; you simply need to ignore it, and say the exact same thing a day later. Even 5 minutes later. Your opponent hasn't made any headway. Disproven yet still reliable tropes on the anti-MMGW side: corrupt climate science, "there's no consensus", US government overreach, "we can't do anything anyway", greenie/science conspiracy for a soshulist dystopia, Climategate, "Al Gore got rich from AGW and his movie", etc
• Keep your goal in sight. On the pro-AGW side, the goal is to direct attention and support to the subject-matter experts to refine our grasp of the problem and its ramifications, and to encourage discussion of possible solutions or mitigating efforts. On the anti- side, the goals are much simpler: keep any discussion mired in a low-level "yes it is/no it isn't" level, which effectively freezes out almost all policy-level action.

Over the last few years, whenever this AGW bunfight breaks out on CF, it's just an argument of zealots from both camps. Clearly, CF is not the place to seek knowledge or intelligent discussion about this important issue.

In conclusion - as lordgeoff has stated, bringing evidence to an AGW debate on CF is like trying to teach a pig to dance: it wastes time and it annoys the pig. We must bear in mind the CF golden rule - "Be Nice". Perhaps it's time to stop annoying fellow members with evidence.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Do you know what cult means? It means "small culture".

With regards to climate change though, it's the deniers who a gtre the minority.
97% of climate scientists agree on climate change. Other scientists and people with science educations agree. Governments agree. Most of the general population agree.

YOU are part of a cult.

No....the Voters, and the majority of the US House and Senate are...coke back to me when YOU fix that reality....smile....

[savoir]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Do you know what cult means? It means "small culture".

With regards to climate change though, it's the deniers who are the minority.
97% of climate scientists agree on climate change. Other scientists and people with science educations agree. Governments agree. Most of the general population agree.

YOU are part of a cult.

Dear oh dear oh dear, another quotation of that "97%" claptrap. When will it sink in with you guys? That 97% of scientists stuff is pure baloney yet you keep repeating it !

Did all you warmistas graduate from the Big Joe Goebbels School of Propaganda or something ? It was Big Joe who said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Repress dissent ? That's a bit like telling people that the science is settled or insulting the opinion of anyone who isn't a qualified climate scientist, isn't it ?

I see you are from Australia the home of one of the world's more outrageous climate snake oil salesmen Tim "Flim Flam" Flannery who forecast in March 2010 that the sea level would rise by 60 metres. As I have said before "follow the money". Soon after forecasting these dire consequences old Flim Flam invested in a waterfront house near Sydney. the till there safe and sound and dry. HAHAHAHA ! I digress. On to the 97% twaddle.

For the benefit of all you rusted on warmista true believers who are too busy to investigate their sources I will explain the derivation of that "97%" business.

In 2009 the University of Illinois issued to a little over 10,000 people a highly detailed and extremely scientific survey consisting of um, er, well, er, it was a massive two questions about climate change. By a method that could itself be the subject of debate the University whittled the numbers down by ignoring the 7,000 who thought the survey unworthy of reply and focusing on the 3,000 who did. From that number under application of the most rigorous of screening processes they focused even more closely on a subset of 77 climate scientists and noted that 75 of them answered "Yes" to one of the two questions. That's right, the questions only permitted yes/no answers. Was their method of selecting the 77 valid ? "Who cares?" say Big Joe.

Are you still with me boys and girls ? References to "97% of world scientists agree" . . . . blah blah blah, are really references to 75 out of 3,000 scientists answering "Yes" to a question whose only alternative was "No".

The question asked was:
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

What the hell does that mean ? I don't know either.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by savoir

For the benefit of all you rusted on warmista true believers who are too busy to investigate their sources I will explain the derivation of that "97%" business.

Except you are 100% mistaken.

It comes from a published paper quantifying peer reviewed scientific literature.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by savoir

The question asked was:
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

What the hell does that mean ? I don't know either.

Don't put yourself down like that. I'm certain that you fully comprehend the question,the fact that it could be answered 'yes' or 'no', and the implications of how the surveyed scientists answered that question.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by sneuman

And here I thought you were the one who believed in global conspiracies to hide the truth.

Conspiracies are for suckers.
Besides 4 out of 5 dentists believe in MMGW so that makes it settled science.....

[savoir]

Originally Posted by conachair

Except you are 100% mistaken.

It comes from a published paper quantifying peer reviewed scientific literature.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

If I am 100% mistaken then CNN must be publishing references to the survey and the figure of 97% (actually 97.4% but who cares) under a delusion. Perhaps you could assist by giving them a call and sorting them out.
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

CNN not good enough ? How about original results of the survey itself ? If that won't do then I am at a loss, which means I guess that I really am 100% mistaken.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Aaaahhh, warmista logic ! Aint it grand ? Time for a little more snake oil.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Well if it was on CNN it must be true...hands up don't shoot!

[FlightPlan]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Well if it was on CNN it must be true...hands up don't shoot!

That is funny!