Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Your contention is that my 'picture wasn't good enough'.
And you wonder why people respond to you the way they do.
lol x 1,000,000
Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
And you wonder why people respond to you the way they do.
lol x 1,000,000
Red1966
Well-Known Member
not an ice shelf
OH MY GOD!!! IT'S FLOATING!
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Grounded ice?? Wait? What? You mean there's ice.... ON THE GROUND? That's not floating in water OR air?
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Never said it was. It's a glacier, AKA land ice.
The Ice shelf is where the ground ice starts. Anything further out to sea is sea ice, anything further inland is land ice.
Thanks to your AMAZING description of a glass of water full of ice cubes, it's safe to say we all know what happens to sea ice when it melts. BUT.... what happens to the land ice when it melts?
Last edited:
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Where exactly did I ever say I wonder about anything?
I post with the intent of getting the response you have given me. I guess that means I win.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Maybe you don't wonder, it would explain a lot.Where exactly did I ever say I wonder about anything?
I post with the intent of getting the response you have given me. I guess that means I win.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
It fills your brain, apparently.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
In order to follow along with what you are proposing one would have to believe that I give 2 shits about anything here. I don't come here to prove myself, I come here to amuse myself. Thanks for playing along.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Thanks for making me chuckle at the inadequacy of others.In order to follow along with what you are proposing one would have to believe that I give 2 shits about anything here. I don't come here to prove myself, I come here to amuse myself. Thanks for playing along.
Fair trade?
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Please, don't let me get in the way of you trying to prove something. Please carry-on with your ice shelf knowledge. It's all really fascinating.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's really showing how much you don't care.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
What you do, or want, has never never been a concern of mine, let alone a hurdle. You couldn't get in the way if you wanted to.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Wow...
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Yet you chose to reply to me. Shouldn't you be posting about melting ice and stuff?
Doer
Well-Known Member
That's pretty much what I thought. I could not believe the last sentence of this show, How the Earth Works.
They went into a study of the ICE BALL, 660,000 million years. OK. Lots of evidence for that too. But, they went into how it completely scoured the planet and all the good that came after that. All the NEW diversity. Yeah, what a great thing that man is screwing up. All the new life, after man is gone. (creepy)
I want to remind you Pad, massive sincerity can seen like sarcasm. I am changing my mind about this. Seriously. Now that I know the orbit, I can see how we are forcing. But, we are not forcing warming. Red Herring. We are forcing the world not to freeze over so fast.
IAC, the final sentence was something like this.
We know the Ice Age is coming in 1500 years, and we know we may not survive it, but we must do all we can to honor the Earth's natural cycle, because it was the last time the Ice World melted that created the place for mammal to evolve, and thus for us to have our place.
No Shit! And that is what I thought, Pad,
Wow. Madness.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud
Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud
In what is nearly a replay of the Climategate e-mail scandal of the University of East Anglia, independent climate blogger Brandon Shollenberger has been threatened with a lawsuit and arrest if he releases data that climate alarmists left online unencrypted showing their claim that 97.1 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” is false — and a huge fabrication. The lawsuit threat is the latest development in a drama that began a little over a year ago, when Shollenberger scooped the global establishment media and the world scientific community to expose one of the biggest science frauds of all time.
We’ve all seen and heard reports and statements, too numerous to be counted, that “more than 97 percent” of scientists endorse the proposition that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, et al — have repeated (again and again and again) this climate “consensus” claim. And the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, et al, parrot these parrotings over and over and over, never bothering to check, let alone challenge, the absolute ludicrousness of the hyperbolic assertion.
The 97-percent myth was launched last year by Australian global-warming activist John Cook and the alarmist website, SkepticalScience.com. Responsible scientists and sensible laymen were properly skeptical of the SkepticalScience claims from the get-go, but it took the investigative digging of independent blogger Brandon Shollenberger to expose how Cook was cooking the data.
0.5 percent, Not 97.1 Percent!
Incredibly (but not so surprisingly, considering the fanaticism of some climate zealots), after deconstructing Cook’s data that was publicly available, Shollenberger found that only 65 (yes, 65) of the 12,000+ scientific abstracts Cook and his team of volunteers studied can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming. For a 97.1-percent “consensus” we would expect 11,640+ abstracts to endorse anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, or AGW — not a mere 65! This was big news, but the silence from Big Media was deafening, which was, again, not so surprising. And this was not the only newsworthy revelation concerning the Cook study, which Cook tellingly referred to as “The Consensus Project” or “TCP.” Clearly, Cook and his band of zealous sous chefs cooked the data recipe to create their consensus pièce de résistance. They were caught pants down, in flagrante delicto; but, again, silence from the mainstream media newshounds who can be counted on to bay and howl unceasingly at the slightest peccadillo, misstep, or blooper by political conservatives. However, The New American published a detailed series of reports on the important Shollenberger/Cook exposé: Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013); Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report (May 22, 2013); and Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013).
As we noted, Cook’s “study” was merely an expanded reprise of the earlier, much-quoted, fraudulent “research” of Naomi Oreskes, who first popularized the 97-percent consensus deception in 2004. We wrote:
Cook’s “Introduction” admits that “TCP is basically an update and expansion of Naomi Oreskes' survey of the peer-reviewed literature with deeper analysis.” That is an interesting admission, since the 2004 Oreskes study — which was the original source for the 97 percent claim — was exposed for the same methodological flaws. Dr. Benny Peiser, a social science professor at John Moores University and visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham, eviscerated the Oreskes study, pointing out that Oreskes had falsified the so-called consensus by her faulty selection criteria in choosing papers to include in her survey.
If You Print the Truth, We’ll Sue You.
But Shollenberger did not rest on his laurels; he kept digging. Last week, on May 15, Shollenberger published his 100th posting, entitled, “MY HUNDREDTH POST CAN’T BE SHOWN.”
He explained:
Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.??
You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.
In fact, the University of Queensland (in Queensland, Australia) threatened to sue Shollenberger if he even published their threatening letter to him! And, for an extra measure of overkill, the university implied that Shollenberger had illegally “hacked” their computer system, and that he might face arrest and criminal charges.
According to Shollenberger, he recently retrieved the raw data of Cook, et al from a “publicly accessible, third-party website,” where it was being stored. Shollenberger says it didn’t require any “hacking” because it was unprotected and unencrypted.
After some consideration and consultation, Shollenberger announced May 18 on his blog that he is challenging the university and “calling their bluff.” He released their letter and said he would release the Cook data, unless the university, SkepticalScience, or Cook would respond to his inquiries for an explanation as to what legal or ethical consideration should compel him not to publish this publicly accessed data. This a replay of the Climategate e-mail scandal of the University of East Anglia, where “scientists” refused to make public their data for peer and public review, so that an honest assessment of the alleged science upon which policies affecting the entire planet (and involving trillions of dollars) might be conducted. They illegally refused Freedom of Information requests, destroyed data, and threatened legal action against those who divulged their e-mail communications concerning their unethical and illegal activities.
Shollenberger wrote:
Nobody has told me what I need to keep confidential. Nobody has explained why I need to keep things like datestamps secret. Nobody has explained how knowing people performed 65 ratings two years ago (to the day) could affect anyone’s contractual obligations. Nobody has explained how disclosing material like that could possibly harm anyone.
So here’s the challenge I want to propose to the Skeptical Science team, to the University of Queensland, and to anyone else who thinks I shouldn’t release the data I possess:
Tell me what material I possess could cause harm if disseminated. Tell me what agreements or contractual obligations would be impinged upon if that material were released to the public. [Bold in original.]
If you are unable or unwilling to meet such a simple challenge, I’ll release the data and you can bite me. I mean, sue me.
The threatening letter from University of Queensland Solicitor Jane Malloch to Shollenberger can be accessed here.
So, Shollenberger has once again scooped all of the MSM “investigative” journos. And, of course, the MSM thought cartel is, once again, ignoring his latest huge breakthrough, as well as the unconscionable (and ridiculous) threats of a major university. We ran a check on Google, Yahoo, and Bing for news stories about the Shollenberger/Cook/U of Queensland dustup. Almost a total zip; only one MSM story — a blog post on May 19 at the Washington Post. Nada, nothing from the New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, and all the rest of the MSM choir that have been trumpeting Cook’s phony consensus “research” for the past year. As usual, it has remained for climate skeptic sites, with minuscule fractions of the resources available to the corporate MSM giants, to do the job of responsible reporting on this dramatic development. Especially informative (and amusing) reports and analysis of the Shollenberger/Cook story have been posted by JoNova, Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit, and Steven Hayward at Powerline.
Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud
In what is nearly a replay of the Climategate e-mail scandal of the University of East Anglia, independent climate blogger Brandon Shollenberger has been threatened with a lawsuit and arrest if he releases data that climate alarmists left online unencrypted showing their claim that 97.1 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” is false — and a huge fabrication. The lawsuit threat is the latest development in a drama that began a little over a year ago, when Shollenberger scooped the global establishment media and the world scientific community to expose one of the biggest science frauds of all time.
We’ve all seen and heard reports and statements, too numerous to be counted, that “more than 97 percent” of scientists endorse the proposition that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, et al — have repeated (again and again and again) this climate “consensus” claim. And the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, et al, parrot these parrotings over and over and over, never bothering to check, let alone challenge, the absolute ludicrousness of the hyperbolic assertion.
The 97-percent myth was launched last year by Australian global-warming activist John Cook and the alarmist website, SkepticalScience.com. Responsible scientists and sensible laymen were properly skeptical of the SkepticalScience claims from the get-go, but it took the investigative digging of independent blogger Brandon Shollenberger to expose how Cook was cooking the data.
0.5 percent, Not 97.1 Percent!
Incredibly (but not so surprisingly, considering the fanaticism of some climate zealots), after deconstructing Cook’s data that was publicly available, Shollenberger found that only 65 (yes, 65) of the 12,000+ scientific abstracts Cook and his team of volunteers studied can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming. For a 97.1-percent “consensus” we would expect 11,640+ abstracts to endorse anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, or AGW — not a mere 65! This was big news, but the silence from Big Media was deafening, which was, again, not so surprising. And this was not the only newsworthy revelation concerning the Cook study, which Cook tellingly referred to as “The Consensus Project” or “TCP.” Clearly, Cook and his band of zealous sous chefs cooked the data recipe to create their consensus pièce de résistance. They were caught pants down, in flagrante delicto; but, again, silence from the mainstream media newshounds who can be counted on to bay and howl unceasingly at the slightest peccadillo, misstep, or blooper by political conservatives. However, The New American published a detailed series of reports on the important Shollenberger/Cook exposé: Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013); Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report (May 22, 2013); and Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013).
As we noted, Cook’s “study” was merely an expanded reprise of the earlier, much-quoted, fraudulent “research” of Naomi Oreskes, who first popularized the 97-percent consensus deception in 2004. We wrote:
Cook’s “Introduction” admits that “TCP is basically an update and expansion of Naomi Oreskes' survey of the peer-reviewed literature with deeper analysis.” That is an interesting admission, since the 2004 Oreskes study — which was the original source for the 97 percent claim — was exposed for the same methodological flaws. Dr. Benny Peiser, a social science professor at John Moores University and visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham, eviscerated the Oreskes study, pointing out that Oreskes had falsified the so-called consensus by her faulty selection criteria in choosing papers to include in her survey.
If You Print the Truth, We’ll Sue You.
But Shollenberger did not rest on his laurels; he kept digging. Last week, on May 15, Shollenberger published his 100th posting, entitled, “MY HUNDREDTH POST CAN’T BE SHOWN.”
He explained:
Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.??
You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.
In fact, the University of Queensland (in Queensland, Australia) threatened to sue Shollenberger if he even published their threatening letter to him! And, for an extra measure of overkill, the university implied that Shollenberger had illegally “hacked” their computer system, and that he might face arrest and criminal charges.
According to Shollenberger, he recently retrieved the raw data of Cook, et al from a “publicly accessible, third-party website,” where it was being stored. Shollenberger says it didn’t require any “hacking” because it was unprotected and unencrypted.
After some consideration and consultation, Shollenberger announced May 18 on his blog that he is challenging the university and “calling their bluff.” He released their letter and said he would release the Cook data, unless the university, SkepticalScience, or Cook would respond to his inquiries for an explanation as to what legal or ethical consideration should compel him not to publish this publicly accessed data. This a replay of the Climategate e-mail scandal of the University of East Anglia, where “scientists” refused to make public their data for peer and public review, so that an honest assessment of the alleged science upon which policies affecting the entire planet (and involving trillions of dollars) might be conducted. They illegally refused Freedom of Information requests, destroyed data, and threatened legal action against those who divulged their e-mail communications concerning their unethical and illegal activities.
Shollenberger wrote:
Nobody has told me what I need to keep confidential. Nobody has explained why I need to keep things like datestamps secret. Nobody has explained how knowing people performed 65 ratings two years ago (to the day) could affect anyone’s contractual obligations. Nobody has explained how disclosing material like that could possibly harm anyone.
So here’s the challenge I want to propose to the Skeptical Science team, to the University of Queensland, and to anyone else who thinks I shouldn’t release the data I possess:
Tell me what material I possess could cause harm if disseminated. Tell me what agreements or contractual obligations would be impinged upon if that material were released to the public. [Bold in original.]
If you are unable or unwilling to meet such a simple challenge, I’ll release the data and you can bite me. I mean, sue me.
The threatening letter from University of Queensland Solicitor Jane Malloch to Shollenberger can be accessed here.
So, Shollenberger has once again scooped all of the MSM “investigative” journos. And, of course, the MSM thought cartel is, once again, ignoring his latest huge breakthrough, as well as the unconscionable (and ridiculous) threats of a major university. We ran a check on Google, Yahoo, and Bing for news stories about the Shollenberger/Cook/U of Queensland dustup. Almost a total zip; only one MSM story — a blog post on May 19 at the Washington Post. Nada, nothing from the New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, and all the rest of the MSM choir that have been trumpeting Cook’s phony consensus “research” for the past year. As usual, it has remained for climate skeptic sites, with minuscule fractions of the resources available to the corporate MSM giants, to do the job of responsible reporting on this dramatic development. Especially informative (and amusing) reports and analysis of the Shollenberger/Cook story have been posted by JoNova, Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit, and Steven Hayward at Powerline.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i went to thenewamerican and enjoyed some of their other articles, including "why we're losing the culture wars", "a question for those who believe in homosexual scouts", "missouri fails to nullify FEDERAL GUN GRAB", "IMF bailout for ukraine and the new world currency".
they really seem to have their heads in the right place there.
they really seem to have their heads in the right place there.
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
Here we go with the gay shit again.