"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22

[Vuk]

Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly. "Flat-Earth Science Deniers" and other terms have been used to describe those of us who believed that the science accepted by today's governments contradicted history and common sense. Our's was not just another opinion though, but a vile heresy that should never be uttered on these forums, and managed to open the flood-gates of bitter bile from those wise members of this forum who disagreed with us.
When I said that the science was not settled, I was told what a fool I was, and that ever respectable scientist accepted current theories and that the science was as settled as it could possibly get.

What do you think now darlings?

Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'

Ohh, my, oh my that sounds familiar.

Admit it, you don't know dog-poo.
Even our best scientist don't understand a tiny fraction of what causes changes in our climate or how to predict them. The best thing we got is history, and it shows swings more drastic than we have seen since the industrial revolution all throughout history.

Now let's see how many of you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are wrong and to apologize for all the inappropriate crap you have said through out the years to the members who have disagreed with you on this subject.

[gaelic cowboy]

the Daily Mail is a rag my dear fellow dont shoot yer bolt just yet

Also the sea ice thing is merely whats called regression towards the mean

[Fisherking]

I wouldn’t hold my breath for that if I were you.

People don’t like to be wrong and for some admitting it is nearly impossible.

Then there are the True Believers who will not be swayed by any means. Facts or otherwise, because it is their belief that man is responsible.

[gaelic cowboy]

Extent of sea ice from 1980s to 2013

plus the sea ice revisions

There is a clear reduction in sea ice in that graph even in the revision.

The increse is merely just a larger amount than last year because last year was an extreme.

[Husar]

I am truly sorry Vuk.

[Beskar]

i don't think anyone has done the following:

Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly

This statement is more shaky than the consensus on climate change.

[Fisherking]

The major even was not that warming may be over. It is that the sea ice is not completely gone, as predicted.

On the other hand, glaciers do seem to be growing, particularly in the southern hemisphere.

Antarctic Ice is said to be the greatest ever recorded, but that is not a very long history.

It is a bit too soon for one side to be crowing too loudly.

[Vuk]

It is not just the Daily Mail who is reporting on it.
Also, what is important is not that arctic sea ice is at a historical average, but that the powers of prediction of the man-made global warming community are exactly 0. They have no idea what they are doing, and their science is just BS. Why? Because they did not set out to understand the causes for climate change, but to prove a political doctrine used as justification for reducing the world's population and increasing the power of the political and economic elite.

[gaelic cowboy]

I gave you actual data whereas you gave us some journo who will write about sharktocupus tomorrow.

[AntiDamascus]

Actually David Rose seems to have a certain theme to his articles. You'd almost swear he's writing with some kind of bias.

[Vuk]

I gave you actual data whereas you gave us some journo who will write about sharktocupus tomorrow.

And what does your data prove? That arctic sea ice was receding and is now coming back? What does that prove? It says nothing to address the fact that their predictions completely failed because they do not understand the underlying causes of the changes they are measuring. No one is arguing that climate change does not exist. It has and always will - even if humans cease to exist entirely. The point is that these people are claiming they know the causes for it and the way are the major factor contributing to it (mainly through our release of greenhouse gases). Considering that we continue to release more and more greenhouse gases, shouldn't the trends they are predicting be getting worse, not better? Also, if they really do understand the science of what causes this, and really can predict what will happen (as they claim they can. In fact, the arguments of leftist politicians and those who support their 'green' policies are based on these predictions), then why are they always so wrong? The fact is that either they do not truly understand the causes for these changes, or they are just being dishonest (or a mix of the both). For all we know, what happens below the earth's surface and on the sun has more to do with climate change than anything that happens on the surface of the earth.

[Hax]

Ooh ooh, are we doing book quotes today?

"Linguistic history is basically the darkest of the dark arts, the only means to conjure up the ghosts of vanished centuries. With linguistic history we reach furthest back into the mystery: humankind" - Cola Minis 1952: 107 [Euphorion 46]

[gaelic cowboy]

And what does your data prove? That arctic sea ice was receding and is now coming back? What does that prove? It says nothing to address the fact that their predictions completely failed because they do not understand the underlying causes of the changes they are measuring. No one is arguing that climate change does not exist. It has and always will - even if humans cease to exist entirely. The point is that these people are claiming they know the causes for it and the way are the major factor contributing to it (mainly through our release of greenhouse gases). Considering that we continue to release more and more greenhouse gases, shouldn't the trends they are predicting be getting worse, not better? Also, if they really do understand the science of what causes this, and really can predict what will happen (as they claim they can. In fact, the arguments of leftist politicians and those who support their 'green' policies are based on these predictions), then why are they always so wrong? The fact is that either they do not truly understand the causes for these changes, or they are just being dishonest (or a mix of the both). For all we know, what happens below the earth's surface and on the sun has more to do with climate change than anything that happens on the surface of the earth.

No it does not say Arctic ice is coming back in fact it proves the opposite.

all your proving is that you dont know how to read the graph I gave you.

You have taken one yr and built a thread around it Vuk when in fact we need 7 more yrs of data before we even have an average for this decade.

The reality is there will always be statistical outliers in any graph but the overall trend is always the same.

[Vuk]

Not really. It shows a medium term trend of decreased ice (It really shows no long term trends as the earliest data is from the 1980's), but the newest data (2013) shows significantly more ice than the data set before it. Only time can tell if this will develop into a trend or not, but at least in the short term it shows a significant increase in arctic ice.

[Vuk]

A fairly significant year which was not predicted by their computer models though. The change between 2012 and 2013 the greatest one year change shown in the graph you posted. That is significant. We have yet to see if it will remain significant in the long term.
Don't think that maybe my point that the science is not settled and these people do not understand climate change like they pretend to is fairly accurate when they predicted that there would be zero arctic ice in 2013 and we have seen this dramatic increase in arctic ice this year?
I'd say their predictions are pretty lousy and their computer models (built on their understanding of climate change) are broken. Makes you wonder how much they really know about climate change.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not really. It shows a medium term trend of decreased ice (It really shows no long term trends as the earliest data is from the 1980's), but the newest data (2013) shows significantly more ice than the data set before it. Only time can tell if this will develop into a trend or not, but at least in the short term it shows a significant increase in arctic ice.

Even the the 2013 increase is below the previous decades average all we can say for sure is that 2012 etc were extremes.

[Vuk]

Even the the 2013 increase is below the previous decades average all we can say for sure is that 2012 etc were extremes.

Decade's average, but not yearly average. The change from 2012 to 2013 was a far more drastic change than any other one year change shown on the graph.

[gaelic cowboy]

Decade's average, but not yearly average. The change from 2012 to 2013 was a far more drastic change than any other one year change shown on the graph.

Your trying to debunk 30yrs of data with a 1 yr increase with only have 3 measurements.

Also there are only 2 increase/decreases entered the differences between 2011-2012 and between 2012 -2013

Taking those three years together then the average is less than 2013 for the decade so far.

Even with this years increase you have proven nothing, however I wont be claiming this will be the average for the decade until more data is entered

[a completely inoffensive name]

SO here we have a Vuk thread:

A. About climate change denial
B. With a bible quote as the title
C. Linking to the DailyMail

I will just close this tab and continue watching the SC2 finals at Dreamhack: Bucharest.

[HoreTore]

a political doctrine used as justification for reducing the world's population and increasing the power of the political and economic elite.

I was following you until this point.

Now you're in crazy-land.


Do I need to comment on the insanity of the statement, or should we just let it pass?

[HopAlongBunny]

Train coming
It's a long way off
But it is coming
Tell me when it gets here...
Bye :p

[Papewaio]

One year by itself is weather. Climate is decades and centuries of data.

It is like saying summer is always bleak because of a single rainy afternoon. One data point does not a scientific argument make.

[Vuk]

Your trying to debunk 30yrs of data with a 1 yr increase with only have 3 measurements.

Also there are only 2 increase/decreases entered the differences between 2011-2012 and between 2012 -2013

Taking those three years together then the average is less than 2013 for the decade so far.

Even with this years increase you have proven nothing, however I wont be claiming this will be the average for the decade until more data is entered

That is not my point at all. I am not denying that arctic ice has been receding for the last few decades. I am just saying that these climate change scientists obviously do not know what they are talking about considering that they predicted we would have zero arctic ice this year and instead we have far more than last year and very far from 0.

I was following you until this point.

Now you're in crazy-land.


Do I need to comment on the insanity of the statement, or should we just let it pass?

That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.

One year by itself is weather. Climate is decades and centuries of data.

It is like saying summer is always bleak because of a single rainy afternoon. One data point does not a scientific argument make.

That is not my point at all. My point is that it is 2013 and there is arctic ice (a significant amount in fact). The 'experts' told us there would be none by now. That doesn't shake your faith in them at all?

[rvg]

IMHO global warming is extremely dangerous. Whether or not it's "natural" or man-made doesn't really matter, because it's gonna hurt us either way. I'm not talking about NYC or New Orleans getting a bit soggy, or even some Polynesian pip-squeak states disappearing altogether. The real disaster will strike when it shifts the rainfall patterns and the Corn Belt becomes a desert. Now that is something that scares the bejeezus out of me, because the Corn Belt feeds probably a couple of billion people.

So, instead of worrying about who started it (which ultimately doesn't matter) we should be focusing on how to stop it, or better yet -- how to exert control over the global climate.

[AntiDamascus]

That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.

This fascinates me. Who is supposed to be controlled? What area or group of people are they trying to keep small and how does the global warming "myth" accomplish that?

[HoreTore]

That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.

lolwut?

The only ones who "advocate population control" are individuals deciding not to have kids/only have one kid for reasons of population control. Reducing handouts to families to discourage births have been attempted, but they usually fail instantly seeing as taking money from the majority of people in a society usually isn't an easy thing to do in a democracy.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Actually, the REAL question here is why anyone would be interested in a publication that sports such topics as:

...a hungry kid looking for a meal from his mother
...a pregnant reality show star
...the "toned legs in tiny shorts" of a popular actress
...the daily shopping routine of a married Hollywood couple

and my favorite:

...a popular zit-faced adolescent has this quote about school---"School is the Tool to Brainwash the Youth"

Perhaps that's the problem with those IPCC researchers....they got far too much schooling

[drone]

Daily Mail bashing is fun for the whole family, but Vuk is correct, it is being reported on other sites:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...485712464.html
Even if the WSJ leans right, Murdoch hasn't turned it into the Sun just yet.

[Ironside]

That is not my point at all. I am not denying that arctic ice has been receding for the last few decades. I am just saying that these climate change scientists obviously do not know what they are talking about considering that they predicted we would have zero arctic ice this year and instead we have far more than last year and very far from 0.

You're quoting a very biased and from what I can see unprofesional journalist (he's third person complaining about vitrol he's gotten for the older article (and the one with less of a point as well, I've never seen that before).

The ice sheet one is quite bad. It's taking one scientist (who has a interview here) who basically said that the ice can be gone as early as in 5 years. That's not a "The ice will be gone 2013"-statement, it's a "it can be gone by that point, but it will take longer". One of his big points are that they had previously underestimated the thinning of the ice. That thinning means that a warm year could suddenly create a massive shrinking, that would take years to recover properly (since a one year ice is still too thin).

And for you, 1 scientist making a guess based on his predictions, means the entire scientific cummunity making a combined statement that they claim are 100% accurate...

And for the increase this year. If you look here, you can see that it's mostly because 2012 had much, much less ice than the trendsline and that 2013 is slighly above the decreasing trendline. As in, the ice is behaving pretty much as expected.

That is really the whole point: population control. It is why they invented the man-made global warming myth. It was created by a bunch of eugenicists whose previous methods of population control had failed.

... That really doesn't make sense. The west is self regulating and the most efficient method for the rest is to increase living standards. That's been obvious for decades by now and is seen to be still working.

That is not my point at all. My point is that it is 2013 and there is arctic ice (a significant amount in fact). The 'experts' told us there would be none by now. That doesn't shake your faith in them at all?

No. Now that the models are generally predicting that the warming trend should be larger than it is, that is actually valid.

[Montmorency]

Daily Mail bashing is fun for the whole family, but Vuk is correct, it is being reported on other sites:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...485712464.html
Even if the WSJ leans right, Murdoch hasn't turned it into the Sun just yet.

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

If this interpretation is correct, it's hardly reason to pop any corks.

Yet Vuk's reaction seems to be analogous to this:

Doctor: Good news! The latest tests have pushed back the cancer prognosis by a few years.

Patient: You hear that? Cancer's a myth! Time to smoke a pack to celebrate!