18-Mile Crack Seen by NASA in Antarctic Glacier

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/02/19-mile-crack-in-antarctic-glacier/

 

How's the weather in Wonderland these days, Ace? The scientists, politicians and "elitists" that are really fueling this phony "controversy" are those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. It takes a seriously irrational person, spoon-fed a steady diet of right-wing propaganda, to come to the opposite conclusion.

 

Climate Change Weekly - Muller Backtracks on Warming Claims


November 3, 2011






James M. Taylor

James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly... (read full bio)
EMAIL














Georgia Tech climate professor Judith Curry, coauthor with Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley temperature reconstruction that has been dominating global warming media attention for the past two weeks, has posted a summary of a discussion she had with Muller about his Wall Street Journal article and other media claims regarding the temperature reconstruction. Muller had told the media that as a result of his team’s reconstruction of land-based temperature measurements there is no longer justification for global warming skepticism. Curry, however, reports Muller acknowledged to her caveats and concessions that are not apparent in Muller’s statements to the press.
According to Curry, Muller told her he intended his Wall Street Journal article to be a “conciliatory” article regarding how the data set could be used to settle some of the debates surrounding the land temperature record.
Also according to Curry, “Re[garding] the recent trend, Muller reiterated that you can’t infer anything about what is going on globally from the land data, but the land data shows a continued increase albeit with an oscillation that makes determining a trend rather ambiguous.”
Muller’s concession that “you can’t infer anything” from the land data and his caveat that any trend is “rather ambiguous” contradict media coverage claiming Muller’s reconstruction is the smoking gun that renders continued skepticism ridiculous. Perhaps Muller will issue a press release emphasizing these concessions and caveats so the media will cover the temperature reconstruction more accurately.
SOURCE: Climate Etc

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...hange-weekly-muller-backtracks-warming-claims

 

Natural cycles take a long time...not 100 years. The warming we're observing now cannot be explained by natural forces.

 

BULLSHIT...........Climate change is only 100 years old,,is that what you are saying??

 

The climate is always changing and is cyclic, but during the past century, the climate has changed much more quickly than natural climate cycle records indicate. The most likely reason for this is the CO2 in the atmosphere from mankind's increased burning of fossil fuels.

The science of climate change is about 130 years old. Arhenius was the first scientist to make "global warming" predictions. At the time he did his calculations, he believed that the warming effect of CO2 on climate would be a positive thing.

 

What NASA's Blue Marble Photo Reveals About Climate Change


We know—but perilously fail to see—just how much our planet has changed in the last 40 years.



http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/bill-mckibben-nasa-blue-marble-photo-climate-change

 

I'm saying that man-made climate change is 100 years old. Try to keep up.

 

The only problem there is,,man-made global warming does not exist,,smart ass.......

 

Now here's an example of science actually correcting itself.

Himalayan meltdown not so fast after all: study

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/09/himalayan-meltdown-not-so-fast-after-all-study/

 

This is not the only example,,just the only one that YOU want to recognize:Zz.

 

Oh no I've seen lots of corrections over the years, and seen climate scientists that didn't agree on specific measurements or predictions. I've even seen some things proven wrong. But they don't even add up to 1% of the data and consensus on human caused global warming/climate change.

 

LOL, that's a big fucking lie!:lol:

 

As usual,,you are looking in the wrong places..

 

Here's the difference, Ace. I can be convinced that I'm wrong. If the Arctic Ocean suddenly became choked with ice again, and stayed that way for a few years, I would probably concede that there's something seriously wrong with the prevailing view.

You, however, cannot be convinced. No amount of scientific data would be enough to persuade you. If it were possible to persuade you, you'd have been persuaded a long time ago. And the reason you can't be persuaded is that this has become your religion. Global warming CANNOT be real, because conservatives are not SUPPOSED to believe that it's real. So if the Greenland ice sheet suddenly slid into Baffin Bay and raised sea level by 23 feet, you'd huff and puff and claim that it was all part of a natural cycle, the way you always do.

 

Having been in the physical sciences for decades and knowing what a scientist goes through to establish an observation as representative of fact, if the weather scientists say there is global warming I believe them. The public can say whatever it wants to, and big business immediately loses my vote as being involved with trying to make a profit, and it will say what makes a profit. When the scientists say there is global warming I don't mind the government reacting by pushing forward schedules on electric cars, solar energy, windmills for wind energy, etc. Some day, if we get through this, we will thank God the scientists warned us.

 

No one is questioning the global warming,,,we are questioning the theories.