“Glacier-gate” seems real!

“Glaciergate” seems real! The IPCC will be making an announcement sometime over the next few days. The glaciers might not be disappearing for a long time yet, so that’s one less thing to worry about. For a long time I’ve been wondering why we didn’t all know far, far more about the glaciers, but maybe some in the organisation doubted the claims and did not push them until the peer-reviewed literature came to light? I don’t know.

And I for one am glad! This is a case where it seems something got into the IPCC process without being peer-reviewed. It does not kill the rest of climate science, but serious questions are going to be asked about how a non-peer reviewed paper got through.

Of course the Denialists will jump up and down with excitement and foam at the mouth that the WHOLE of climate science is now in doubt, but, um… that’s just because they can’t get their own anti-science papers published by the peer-review process isn’t it? Because they’re NOT science but anti-warming dogma funded by the fossil fuel companies. But that’s a whole other conspiracy… ain’t it? 😉

The climate scientists at Realclimate just entitled their piece on “Glacier-gate” as follows. ‘The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)’

UN to probe doomsday glacier forecast › News in Science (ABC Science).

The thing I’m glad about in the ABC news heading above? That they even recognise that the glaciers disappearing is a real doomsday scenario! But it seems in God’s goodness, we have a little more time to adjust to that happening.

This entry was posted in Doomer, Global Warming. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to “Glacier-gate” seems real!

  1. pgillman says:

    “It does not kill the rest of climate science”.

    Now where did I hear this – oh! that was the climategate denier response also.

    But wait, how about those polar bears dying out… Ooops, their numbers are actually growing according to the Canadian wildlife management.

    Now here’s one, the snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is all melting all because of AGW… Sorry, according to Nature magazine (hardly an AGW denier), it is deforestation that is the primary culprit.

    How many legs have to get kicked out from under the AGW “theory” until it becomes one of those footnotes in history about how so many people were fooled by so few!

    • eclipsenow says:

      How many legs have to get kicked out from under the AGW “theory” until it becomes one of those footnotes in history about how so many people were fooled by so few!

      You’re ‘poisoning the well’, a logical fallacy that tries to taint the whole theory by association with 1 or 2 nutters. Almost any movement or idea has a few nutters supporting the cause, and ‘poisoning the well’ does not go to the HEART of the matter, but just focuses on what is wrong with those nutters!

      In other words, go ahead and ignore the basic physics and chemistry of the spectrometry of greenhouse gases, which is repeatable, empirical science done in a lab, and ignore the Radiative Forcing Equation which is a big counting game analysing how much of the various Co2 equivalent gases there are in the atmosphere and then taking what we’ve learnt in the lab and calculating the total energy imbalance! Ignore all that, please! Because it makes you look deceitful and doesn’t help your denialist cause.

      So now let’s distinguish what a ‘leg’ is in your mind. It seems to be the ‘consequences’ that the climatologists are warning about. I think even the climatologists are admitting that there are various probabilities as to what will happen as a result of the basic physics and math of spectrometry and the radiative forcing equation, but they are not claiming to have a crystal ball into the future! Your tempter tantrum above is like demanding to know WHEN the thief will strike, and exactly WHAT he will take, before you will bother to take out insurance!

      Lastly, you say “fooled by so few!” Actually it is the other way around. The Denialists are the ones that have been fooled by so few, but as no one can ‘patent the laws of physics and chemistry’ every science institute around the globe can run their own measurements on the various strengths of the various greenhouse gases, test the maths, and then come to their own conclusions.

      Did you know that not ONE reputable scientific institute or academy challenges global warming? No one, on the whole planet! The American petroleum institute now remains ‘neutral’, with a few friends, but not one institute actually contests the basic arguments. But the Denialists are convinced by a few lone nutters recycling the same, tired old 28 myths against climate science. These myths are now so tired and worn out that I’m amazed people keep bringing them up, but that’s denialist dogma for you.

      So with most scientific academies on the planet backing the theory, and only a few being neutral, I’m sorry but who exactly has been fooled by so few?

  2. pgillman says:

    The “science” train has long left the station when it comes to AGW. The basis for virtually all studies and support for AGW comes from the type of science practiced at CRU where data is manipulated, skeptical scientists are discredited and blocked from peer-review, and the “Scientific Method” is discarded and data is tortured to fit the AGW model.

    Garbage in / garbage out it the only way to describe the AGW models created by CRU and “The Team” including Jones, Mann, Briffa and Hansen.

    When both the AGW science falls apart and now the anecdotal evidence supporting AGW becomes suspect, it is only natural to be a skeptic.

    But then it is impossible to question “True Believers” because its your religion. “Denier” – no I would prefer the title of AGW infidel or heretic!

    • eclipsenow says:

      And there you go again, repeating more Denialist rubbish. Even “The Economist” has summed up “Climategate” by saying:

      “The inquiries into the “climategate” e-mails and files may find that some of the researchers fell short of the standards of their calling, or that some of the science in question does not stand up as well as its authors would wish. To think that all action on climate change should cease pending such inquiries, though, is foolish, cynical or both.”

      But basically climategate shows how powerless these climate scientists really are. They came across as a bunch of scientists honestly discussing some of the parameters of their discipline, and expressing frustration at the stupidity of the Denialist rubbish they have to confront all the time, leading them to actually try and ask for certain rubbish papers not to be published. However, the paper in question was published anyway (boy that’s one POWERFUL conspiracy! 😉 and the open and public peer review process revealed it to be exactly what is was, RUBBISH!

      (This section later-edited for clarity).

      I’ve noticed that climate deniers don’t actually quote the most vital paragraph of source documents, because that would show how weak their arguments are. They repeatedly use the old strategy of… repeating. 😉 It’s like a waltz debating climate deniers! The rules of their waltz are: “Assert 2 3, Distract 2 3, Accuse 2 3, then Assert 2 3” and repeat. Note there is no EVIDENCE in their assertions, no real response to questions put to them, no peer-reviewed science given as evidence, and if they DO take the highly unusual step of actually putting forth ‘some evidence’ it is only to link to a 115 page PDF (of pure rubbish which couldn’t get peer reviewed anyway) and words to the effect that “This PDF is self-explanatory”. As to which BIT of the PDF is actually relevant to the discussion at hand? No, actually selecting the most relevant paragraph or concept might too easily be debunked by the real science. This is dishonest argument strategy is exactly what you’ve engaged in. You’ve made a bunch of assertions, then character attacks, then more assertions about climategate, and notice that I’m left guessing what on earth you are actually talking about?

      So I will take a guess at the ‘torturing the data’ climategate accusation you made, and with a wild stab in the dark will guess it is one of the 2 most talked about climategate emails in the Denialosphere: The “Hide the decline” email. Give me a break and learn about the difference between post-60’s tree ring data and actual thermometers! Talk about taking one phrase out of context!

      But then it is impossible to question “True Believers” because its your religion. “Denier” – no I would prefer the title of AGW infidel or heretic!

      I can tell. You’re in denial of the worldwide scientific consensus and basically believe in a worldwide conspiracy as a result. Please, which Dan Brown novel do you live in, Da Vinci Code or Lost Symbol?

  3. Pingback: Dancing with Denialists (and trolls) « Eclipse Now

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s