Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

He'll be gone a while, he's no doubt wildly googling antarctic glacial retreat, and preparing his case for the defence

 

He's taken a beating today from the looks of things.

 

please log in to view this image

 

the question is have YOU read it

I am not reading jack lad, you need to make the point, what conclusion is this link meant to provide? Spell it out, I never post anything without actually making a specific point.

You just posted a link and no argument, you expect me to read that in lieu of you actually making a point and using that as a citation?, that is not how it works.


You can't even tell me what point or point the link makes which leads me to believe 1 you never seen that link before today and 2 you haven't read it through

Make your point, dont just give me a link

 

And he talks of copy paste, a map with no comment whatsoever cos astro doesn't know how that map is created does he?

Now explain how that is created from this

please log in to view this image

I know, I want to know what you know astrofool, lets have it so we can see you know, and that you are not just copying and pasting

 

That sums up your view on the World in a nutshell. You ask for data, I provide it, you can't even be bothered reading it, and then have the temerity to ask if I have For your information, it concludes that 80% of the glacial mass in Antarctica is retreating and the small areas that are gaining mass (1.6%) doesn't in any way cover the net loss.

The #standard MO of a conspiraloon

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

 

I see, so when I ask you to read your own source to get the actual point you are trying to make, you come back with this?
Now in a climate change debate, conspiracy theorist is pulled out?

So are you going to read your own link and make your point? Can you even understand your own citation?

I smell something burning
#meltdown

 

I've already made my point, and backed it up with a source.

I did this at your request, when you avoided answering the simple question I put to you about glacial retreat.

You claimed to have evidence that 'proves' that the idea of glacial retreat in Antarctica is incorrect.......I think it's time you posted it

 

just seen this copy paste, ******, I showed total investment in science and VC doesn't scratch the surface.

what makes me laugh is you put this forward as if it is from you and not a link, you are THAT pathetic

VC funding for total science is nothing, miniscule, there you go again, 3 minute expert

please log in to view this image

 

So have we decided who's won the googling competition yet

Speaking of which - today's google doodle is the 41st anniversary of the discovery of Lucy.

 

Oh dear, yet again he leaps in and posts without even taking in what's been said.

You must have missed the bit where I said Science and technology ENTERPRISE sector

Not stand alone research you complete cock.

As for 3 minute expert? I already told you that my other half is heavily involved in this sector and has been for a decade.

 

Now seeing as you still wont make any technical argument.

This crank website shows the opposite of what you claim. This is the IPCC 4th assessment report. btw, notice contribution to sea level. Antarctica is negative. meaning for stupid people like you, that it is subtracting from sea level.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

please log in to view this image

Now, I know science is stupid when making points.

Here is the NASA study that says the Antarctic gains more ice than it loses, or as we like to say in the real world, is growing.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
And I quote "Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1"


You were saying?

 

Nope I busted your glacier crap, just found that nonsense when I was looking for my IPCC factoid, that Antarctica has not added to sea level for 8 ****in years

The fact is VC funding in science is the same ration as CO2 in the atmosphere There is nowhere your "other half" can work hat makes that untrue.
So who do you know that works in sectors on all the other subjects you are versed in without ever actually reading the **** like?

 

It's my fault, we are getting off track here

Now seeing as you still wont make any technical argument.

This crank website shows the opposite of what you claim. This is the IPCC 4th assessment report. btw, notice contribution to sea level. Antarctica is negative. meaning for stupid people like you, that it is subtracting from sea level.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

please log in to view this image

Now, I know science is stupid when making points.

Here is the NASA study that says the Antarctic gains more ice than it loses, or as we like to say in the real world, is growing.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
And I quote "Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1"


You were saying?

 

Do you actually read what you post?

In the final paragraph of that first piece it states the following;

Thawing of permafrost is projected to contribute about 5 mm during the 21st century under the SRES scenario A2

 

Your graph clealy states land-only and that data is missing.

 

You were saying, now you move the goalposts as usual

 

Firstly, you've done nothing of the sort.

Secondly, that post was far from 'nonsense' you'd not even read what I wrote correctly, you deluded troll.

 

It is land only but that is not the point and you know it.

Explain how NASA create that scary warming map, you copied and pasted it didn't you, cos it looked good?

#retard

 

Moved what goalposts?

The piece that you've posted clearly states that the glacial melt will add circa 5mm to sea levels in the 21st Century.

I posted an in depth study of the research into the detail of the Antarctic ice retreat, and you couldn't even be arsed reading it

Classic conspiraloon behaviour.