IPCC 2013

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

I think the global warmist alarmists have lost the PR fight, unless Florida is suddenly under a foot of water. The story will move to how the alarmists overreached, how they screwed up the message, how they muddled up the science, and how they presented themselves as elitists after whom the masses should listen, obey, and follow.

For those who think something should be done, better take the message to China where the action is.

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

[William Thornton]

[Ed Pettibone]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

And where did your propaganda come from, David? Nothing you've cited comes from any credible source other than denialists, and none of them are credible.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Seems like this becomes a battle of the charts. I've noticed that a lot of the references posted by David and the denialists come from corporate sponsored and paid sources, while the stuff that Keith posts is usually generated independently. The problem with this debate is that, regardless of whether you have the money to change public opinion or not, human-induced climate change is ongoing, and the results are inevitable. Bringing out the term "alarmist" is a clear indication of both bias, and unwillingness to consider what science is proving every day. But it is the sort of thing that happens when the facts begin to interfere with anything that generates a quick buck in our culture. Money determines everything, even purchasing its own "scientific" results, and public opinion.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy, money is neutral, both denialist and alarmist use it to promote their bias. Both sides have individuals living well off of the political football being kicked back and forth.

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Well, David is talking about the scientific evidence that "alarmists" are using being invented. It's hard to "invent" the almost complete disappearance of a continent-sized, thick sheet of ice, most of which existed above the Arctic Circle. The ice is almost gone, in a relatively short period of time, and that is visible and irrefutable evidence that the air temperature is warmer than it was two decades ago, especially since the ice had covered Greenland almost completely, and to a significant depth, for several thousand years.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

I assumed that, in speaking of the Greenland ice melt, we were talking about the ice formation that was mentioned in the articles I referenced. I would suggest reading the second post to get a perspective of what I was referencing. We are talking about percentages of significance, including temperatures above freezing recorded in 2012 at the Summit station, roughly in the middle of the ice sheet itself, for the first time ever. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted, there would be coastal flooding everywhere. If you take a look at those articles, you see specifically that the amount of ice that has melted, and the depth to which it has melted, is significant in the amount of time that it has taken place, and is a clear indication of the existence of global warming. Until the last half century, the ice sheet on Greenland was slowly growing, not rapidly shrinking.

The fact that the temperature increases are not evenly distributed around the globe does not refute global warming. The earth's atmosphere naturally reacts to changes in temperature and redistributes thermal energy. But the Antarctic ice melt is also visibly occurring, ice that has existed and covered land for thousands of years is gone, the peripheral ice along the Antarctic coast is softening and melting, and even in the Southern hemisphere, the disappearance of ice is a clear scientific measurement of global warming. It exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkpFNteryX8

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[Haruo]