If you treat anthropogenic climate change as dogmatic fact, that demonstrates a poor grasp of science on your part.

The kicker is that they keep harping on the Ross Ice Shelf melting, while ignoring that the rest of the continent has been getting colder and its glaciers thicker,,,

Same deal with coral die-off and Cuba. Surrounded by islands plagued by it, Cuba has been immune.

Your knowledge is incomplete. You are not representing new data or global trends.

No, yours is, AND YOU KNOW IT.
I am not representing any data whatsover or cute global fads.

False. Not both caps, just the arctic. Not 2014, 2014 to 2016. Not will melt, could melt. Not his prediction, some of the models being used predict. And he immediately followed with Dr. what's his name predicting melt by 2030. As for NASA saying more ice than ever, you need to be specific, was it coverage, or was it volume? There is a black and white difference between these two. And all I did was go and watch is video. How did you arrive at such a flawed and scientifically inaccurate meme response?

Except for an area on the western coast of Antartica (check round the Ross Ice Shelf) which is losing ice to the point it will reach levels it USED TO BE 250 years ago, the ice on the rest of the continent (whcih is completely covered) has been getting thicker. Record low temps have been recorded as well.

"Though results of this study were unexpected, that doesn't change the larger trend of accelerated warming and icecap melting. In fact, NASA just confirmed we are losing ice in Antarctica at a faster rate every year."
Are you cherry picking?

No, you are.
NASA confirmed the loss in in the >western ice shelf<, Ross, as I already hadmentioned.

Indiana had a record cold and long winter recently. The governor said not to go out because it will kill you. The same time, Alaska had a record warm winter. One ice sheet growing does not mean global growth. Confirmed the loss? They've found many unexpected things. And over and over again the arrive at the conclusion that globe is warming, ice is melting, sea levels are rising and man-made emissions have played a huge role in these changes.

Indiana cold is evidence of global warming? Don't forget the rest of the lower 48 and Europe's as well (That semi inversion was caused a jet stream, mkay?).

Next time READ what I had stated and try to understand it before paraphrasing what I had stated as a 'refutation' of what I had stated.

"Modda

Except for an area on the western coast of Antartica (check round the Ross Ice Shelf) which is losing ice to the point it will reach levels it USED TO BE 250 years ago, the ice on the rest of the continent (whcih is completely covered) has been getting thicker. Record low temps have been recorded as well."

The 250 yrs ago bit has to do with skeletons from elephant seal breeding grounds being exposed as the ice melts. As you know, elephant seals breed only on ice clear beaches. So we are almost getting to were the boundary of the ice shelf used to be back then, which is still farther from the ocean than it is now.

Makes me wonder if I mixed threads.
As for Indiana, my point is that one ice shelf does not indicate the whole planet of ice, I compared Indiana and Alaska, essentially the cold moved from Alaska to Indiana or the heat moved from Indiana to Alaska.

"Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.” -https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels-despite-global-warming

I see several stories/studies about an increase in ice on at least part of Antarctica. That region could raise the sea level by 110 feet. Would be nice if we avoid that. But I see a lot of caution as well. We're not sure what will happen. We are trying to study the local systems that could affect the future of that ice shelf. Also, the CO2 levels are probably going to exceed the Pliocene epoch, approximately 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago. So we may find a different outcome.

If your main point is that people are missing this when they talk climate change, I am seeing it now.

You continue to insist on arguing against the facts I've posted by paraphrazing what I had stated yet claiming that proof somehow disproves itself without it doing so and therefore I am in err because you VERIFIED what I had said and, um, zzzzzzzzzz,,,,,

This triffling nonsense is boring, and you're wasting my time a lot.

Exceed levels of until two and a half million years ago? AGAIN, R-E-A-D what I said. We ain't even as warm as we were two and a half CENTURIES ago.
Even at the warmest back in the Pliocene, most of Antartica (the land) was still glaciated.

Traditionally it was thought that as Antartica shifted towards the South Pole, ocean currents became circular around it, minimizing warmer waters mixing in, and thus it got colder.
They found this decade that starting 33 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels began to drop, and the resulting chill is actually the cause of a frozen continent since. CO2 levels are still falling, and you can nuke every bit of combustile material to get that carbon in the air and there ain't a dang thing it would do about it.

Notice how you need to quote material and I don't? And that what you cite verifies all I have said? I'm not even sweating, and I'm not that bright to start with.
Try harder.

On second thought, never mind. I'm basically done here.

Homework assignment:

1. Why did polar bears come close to extinction 180,000 years ago?

2. Why is there coral in Florida higher than than a man on dry ground made 150,000 by a species that lives under 15 - 20' of water?

3. Why did Greenland lose 70% of its ice within a millenia 100,000 years ago but it is still 70% glaciated today, despite your 'Global Warming'?

I'm not even an expert, and I suck at numbers ta boot, yet I still know this basic crap.

Hate to ask what you are (not) doing about this world ender of yours.

1. Polar bears came close to extinction a few times. I see mentions of 120,000 years ago. Causes are warming and ice melt that may have left little or no ice sheets for polar bears to hunt on.

2. Changes in sea level as much as 500 ft below current levels. Fist sized shells being eroded out 40 feet above current sea levels. Scientists have found more than 1000 fossil beaches above current sea level. There exists enough ice to raise sea levels 220 feet. Sorry, haven't found your particular example.

3. There are conflicting studies about the Greenland ice cover in the last 7M years. The above polar bear jaw evidence supports that some ice remained about 120,000 years ago. At least one study supports a short melted period where most of the ice was gone. Studies continue.

It is cited that CO2 is the global "thermostat" and that the temperature has never risen this fast. It is stated that when Earth cooled, the oceans dissolved more CO2 contributing to the cooling and during warming CO2 emerged from the oceans supporting the warming trend. Caution is given that past patterns cant be expected to behave the same way. The science is there.

ad hominem ignored.

Forgot to mention I might be off with some numbers, like I said last night, this is off the top of my head. Plus I am rusty,,,

"Changes in sea level as much as 500 ft below current levels. Fist sized shells being eroded out 40 feet above current sea levels. Scientists have found more than 1000 fossil beaches above current sea level."

40 feet ABOVE current levels.
The coral deposits and a lot more are shown on a History Channel two hr docu about climate change. The end is a crack up, because after presenting info contradicting man-made global warming craze, it then calls it a warning as to how drastic changes can be. Proabably were pressured to add that.

That short melting period in Greenland's ice was far quicker than what is happening today.

Ad hominem?
Seriously, what have you done to help remedy it?

No, seriously, what do you do?

As to the points you've just made, I will be looking at those after submitting this response.

Original claim, "climate change is more politically-based than science-based"
Requires thousands of scientists to collude to deliver the same message.
Requires thousands of scientists to falsify data and weather prediction models.
Main issue that could cause at least some "manipulation" of data must be government funding, whereby so many scientists are so afraid of losing funding that they are willing to lie.

I will concede there is much politics around climate change.

At least one study shows that the more skilled the scientists are, the more they agree that climate change is man-made or "man-affected".
Current models are skillful, meaning they predict with a good degree of accuracy what will happen in the future.
From having skillful models that rely on CO2 being one of the main drivers in climate change supports the effect of an atmospheric factor that has been increased by %40 or more by man.
Antarctica is not following expectations. Studies that look at this are ongoing and the scientists are cautious about what that means and what might happen in the future.
Also, how many climatologists work in congress? I think zero, but I could be wrong.

Like I said, this is getting boring.

The answers to those questions is that previous interglacials were significantly warmer than now, and this one is slated to end in 2000 years, regardless how much our cows fart and cars (do you have one?) belch,,,

"Skillful"? How is that determined? Regardless, why would the skillful scientists in Britian skillfully omit data that contradicted the paradigm and alter other data for it as well? Skillful lies are needed? Cool

- and oh yeah, that. It ain't being called Global Warming anymore for a reason.

no, seriously, i live in the gutter, so I use no electricity, water, or gas.

oOoh, snark, hardee har har,,,

Ain'tcha gonna ask what I do?
(HINT: I do more than you and everyone you know combined, incl FB friendz, the believers on this site, and Al Gore hisself,,,)

Newer, more accurate information shows this is incorrect. Why would you post old information that is proven today to be incorrect?
"Prior to 2012, ice was lost at a steady rate of about 83.8 billion tons (76 billion metric tons) per year, contributing about 0.008 inches (0.2 millimeters) a year to sea level rise. Since 2012, the amount of ice loss per year has tripled to 241.4 billion tons (219 billion metric tonnes) – equivalent to about 0.02 inches per year (0.6 millimeters) of sea level rise."
-https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise

You may have referenced https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

I have looked at these and more.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams

Dash, please look at my comment below. That is the real important fact (temperature is depending on so many influences). But scientists unfortunatley don't stress it, because they know that most people don't know what a pH, a buffer capacity and its crucial importance for life is - so they think it's easier to speak about temperature to alarm the public..

[image deleted]

You can argue this with memes and it won't get anywhere. Let's elect people who are smart enough to stop partisan politics and stop taking money from big oil and coal and look at ways to manage the damage which has already been done.

Science, yes, but research is not science. Research can be politically motivated and influenced - or suppressed. Just ask the tobacco companies, or coca cola. Clearly the concensus is based on science for you, but the does not exclude the possibility that it is based on profit for others.

once you've re-educated your beliefs about george soros with that link i sent you on another post, have a go at some climate change research on Ivar Giaever and Piers Corbyn ;)

I totally agree. I get so frustrated that politics keep us from having objective, intelligent conversations about issues, and "climate change" (I believe) is the best example. I don't give a hoot whether it's true or not. We need to be responsible stewards of our resources and home. The way it's used is like bad parenting. If you guys don't cut it out... It's going to get really hot in 10 years!

I agree. I think we'd have better politicians if we could get the lobbies away from the politicians, and work together on common sense laws that clean things up and don't make the problem worse. It's not our job to educate anyone else in this forum, though.

Awareness of other types of pollution is minimized and sidelined by the focus on climate change. While remedies may cover other manifestations of pollution, any data countering the theory makes it more susceptible to skepticism and thus further inaction. An over reliance on industry as the main culprit in effect offers individuals additional oppurtunity to shirk personal responsibility. Likes on a Facebook page and a $25 tax deductable donation are feel good responses with no sacrifice and impact.

Actually, no.

Firstly, because the people make a scientific consensus are actual scientists who are qualified to study and make a scientific consensus on such things, whereas most of the prominent individuals challenging the scientific consensus on climate change are politicians, not scientists, and also, totally coincidentally, I'm sure, happen to have received large donations from fossil fuel companies.

Secondly, because the United States is, as far as I know, the only first world country with a major political party that denies climate change, and it also just so happens to be one of the least educated, especially in the areas where climate change denialism runs rampant.

Thirdly, and finally, why in the hell would it be "politically-based"? What would be the political advantage of lying about global warming, and who would gain from people believing it?

I take it you didn't read anything in the thread? There's multiple examples of non-politician scientists given in the posts above you that argue with climate change. And you can claim we're the least educated all you like, it doesn't change the fact that we lead in nearly every scientific field, and Europe is STILL trying to catch up to achievements we made fifty years ago. The political advantage? You don't think clean energy corporations lobby politicans the same way big oil does? Swapping one massive corporate interest for another under the guise of protecting the planet doesn't get rid of their greed.

Climate change is a fact! Because globle warming went on sabbatical in 2000.

But seriously, scientists who go against the theory just don't get funding for research. And those who dare are outright dismissed, no matter that the evidence backs them.

You'd think the big oil and coal companies would be chomping at the bit to pay for research that backs massive fossil fuel use and can prove it causes no damage. They'd be all over that kind of "evidence" if anyone could find something solid. They have a lot more money than some mysterious fund that backs the science going back decades.

There is a reason big oil stopped paying for research. I have a friend that lost a government grant, because his research numbers did not match the outcome that they were looking for. He was told that his analysis was flawed and that they were cutting his funding. If the knew the answer, then why pay for research?

Sources of funding are not secret. The motive you mentioned would cause any findings to be dismissed.

We seem to be coming from two completely different viewpoints about the basic work and function of science. I understand why you might feel as you do, but we could stay at this for hours, and I'm not up for that. I'm going to agree to disagree for now.

You have no understanding how I feel, and feelings are irrelevent when it comes to facts.

Scroll above to my Col Sanders for a clue where I'm coming from.

global*

Not if it goes against the generally accepted consensus.

Humans are like that. Swap religions, even with science, and prefabricated paradigms still steer them on their myopic way.

Global Warming was redubbed Climate Change because our road to Venus's twin came to a halt in 1999, but that didn't change the propaganda.

A couple of years ago it became public that British researchers/Global Warming proponents fudged and omitted data that didn't fit with the biased narrative.

Climate changes over Earth's history, whether millions of years or even recent decades, not only make the claims questionable at best but ignore a curious phenomenom - that this interglacial period has been far COOLER than those previous, and there's no reason to account for it.

This is seen in other sciences, such as the (bogus) avian dinosaur theory (I really meant to get to that meme, now it's late) to cultural anthropology (we've discussed that before) which is still pagued by a Euro-centric bias - for crying out loud, Europe is STILL classified as a separate continent! The high preists of geography won't let reality get in on even that one yet,,,

I didn't, was planning to, but the meme was already headed back down, then was gone.
I still haven't gotten around to reading most of it, just skimmed through quickly.

It was the thing about Caucasions in Asia and North Africa I had discussed late last year (as Jack)

Typed a whole thing last night, my tablet lost it, it was way late and I was pissed, so,,,

The alleged relation is based on a superficial similarities. Birds predate therapods by 70 million years, and you can't be older than your ancestor. Feathers on the first two therapods indentified as having them turned out to be faked. The "But the ones after are legit" line seems weak.
Studies of dolphin corpses decaying in mud showed branching filaments of fungus extending outwards into it which bear a striking resemblance to these 'feather' imprints.
Not saying this all totally rules out feathers - crocodilians have a gene necessary in making them too, indicating that prehistoric non-aquatic types may possibly have had them as well.

But then there is the pelvis. Therapods are saurischians (also including the big long necked sauropods) - reptile hipped dinosaurs. Ornithischians (horned dinos, duck billed, etc) are bird hipped, as their name means. But a lumbering elephant sized creature as ancestral to sprightly lithe birds somehow is inconcievable.

There's a crescent shaped carpal bone therapods and birds seem to share, but that turned out to be different bones evolved to look similar because of a bent wrist. Their wrists are bent at different angles also.

Basically it's superficial similarities resulting from convergent evolution. Effigia was once classed as a therapod as well, till distinctive ankle bones peculiar to crocodilians revealed it to be in that order, not a dinosaur at all.

Then there's protoavis, which looks like a more advance bird that archaeopteryx, only it lived 75 million years prior, round the dawn of the dinosaurs. So definitely not a theropod, and very possibly not even a dinosaur. Problem with that creature is that there are questions if it might have been cobbled from different species, its bones having been found jumbled together in a deposit.
Checking up on the latest on that, I found one source stating three specimens have been found. However, all the rest said there was only one, so who knows. The skull was more birdlike in terms of eye orbits and an jointed upper jaw, unlike therapods...

I figured you knew that was me. My tagline also indicates it.
I retired that because I like Modda better, and that was abndoned too long. Jack was originally just for the occasional political or religious debate, so it can get downvoted and trolled while I went about regular stuff as Modda, but then it took over,,,

Dude, no need for an extensive reply on that, it's just little details on the fringes I've picked up over the years. The general consesus dismisses much of it, and I admit that something like protoavis is flimsy. Even me looking for updates on protoavis was a headache, and I had a head start on it, so I don't want to be a hassle. Hell, for all we know, dinosaurs are descended from early birds!

If you can link me to that bird/dino link, that would be cool enough, as I should have posted this there.

Yeah, c'est moi. Figured my dull meandering run ons and sometimes seemingly contradictory stances on various issues was a giveaway. Plus my tagline, but can't count on everyone looking at that,,, Sorry about that.