Climate "Change" Political Hoax

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I'm sorry... I'm all out of slowing down for the special bus.

There's plenty of info on google about it. Don't focus on salt lake city, you just won't get anything. Grasp for the larger concept of climate change and you'll get it eventually.

Should I focus on the arctic ice caps and how much differently they have behaved than the global warming crowd predicted in 2009, or is that going to macro?

 

[Red]

I'm honestly interested in the truth. When I see an example of data being collected in an unexpected way I wonder why. When Al Gore's predictions of ice cap catastrophe not only don't come true, but are reversed on a massive scale, I wonder what is going on. Yes, I know that according to many scientists today that the increasing polar ice caps are actually a sign of global warming, but it seems a little bit strange that the same people who claimed a few years ago that the melting of the polar ice caps was proof of global warming now claim that the enlarging of the polar ice caps are proof of the same thing.

And yes, I agree with you that every human pays more attention to data that confirms their bias than they do to data that flies in the face of what they believe.

I'm no climate scientist, but I'm wondering if it's possible you are confusing conditions in the Arctic and Antarctic. Sea ice does seem to be increasing in the Antarctic, for instance:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming

But are you sure ice is actually growing(and by 45%) in the Arctic?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/28/arctic-sea-ice-record-low-winter

Also, are you sure anyone predicted the Arctic would be ice free altogether, or was the prediction that the Arctic would be ice free in the Summer months by the middle of this decade?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year

"You have said on several occasions that summer Arctic sea ice would disappear by the middle of this decade. It hasn’t. Are you being alarmist?

No. There is a clear trend down to zero for summer cover. However, each year chance events can give a boost to ice cover or take some away. The overall trend is a very strong downward one, however. Most people expect this year will see a record low in the Arctic’s summer sea-ice cover. Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer and by that I mean the central Arctic will be ice-free. You will be able to cross over the north pole by ship. There will still be about a million square kilometres of ice in the Arctic in summer but it will be packed into various nooks and crannies along the Northwest Passage and along bits of the Canadian coastline. Ice-free means the central basin of the Arctic will be ice-free and I think that that is going to happen in summer 2017 or 2018."

------------------------

I don't have the answers, but I'm thinking some of the ice growth you say is happening in the Arctic is actually applicable to the South Pole instead...

 

[Red]

This is the most recent data. Again, I'm not up on this enough to actually judge the science, but is this data actually pointing to the ice growing, long term, in the North Polar region?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[The Thriller]

Should I focus on the arctic ice caps and how much differently they have behaved than the global warming crowd predicted in 2009, or is that going to macro?

How are they acting differently than predicted?

I'm eager to see this.

In All the reports I've seen the Arctic and Antarctic have seen net losses in glaciers. And it's not even close. Sometimes the polar ice caps can fluctuate throughout the year. But the overall net losses each year thoroughly outweigh the varying small seasonal increases during the year.

 

[babe]

Not sure why this thread has become active. In the OP I stated:

"This thread is for discussion of the underlying principles of political management of scientific research..... a sort of discussion of why "political science" is corrupted by grantmaker's motivations or organizational imperatives."

Alt's graphic in post #17 might be considered off-topic, as it doesn't relate to the topic. An interesting graphic, pictorially, without any analysis of the data presented to introduce the question "Can this be Real". Maybe assumes man-caused, or CO2-related.

It is my impression that the data is generally accurate, but with some reasons to believe most errors will be on the positive side of the real. Not many measurement stations are under sprinklers set to run at mid-day. A lot may be near buildings, parking lots, bare ground, highways, in cities and many other positive heat reservoirs.

The political uses of the issue are concerning, and the so-called solutions are damning. The Climate treaties do nothing to actually curb the presumed "cause", with major polluters like China and India actually subsidized for continued bad policy.

Overall, the "Science" has neglected at least several important concurrent variables in order to stack the "blame" solidly on CO2 emissions. I think that is prejudicial or biased overall, and suggestive of political corruption.

I do, however, believe there is a warming event ongoing, as has been the case immediately preceding previous ice ages. If we were willing to insist on good science, and examine all the possibilities, I believe, it would result in a conclusion that there is nothing we need to do, really, but prepare for lower oceans and more polar and mountain ice packs.

And buy real estate in the South.