7 ms·

I think you mean bullshitting. But it is you who are doing that, unfortunately.

cardiac 10y ago
Oh snap, he-she said. Can you say 'gimme money for a grant pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeee.' http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/ http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
- throwaway729 10y ago
  If you're going to accuse others of politically motivated interpretation of data, the least you could do is abstain from the same activity. http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/nasa-antarctica-mass-gain/#bN88_wOEPkqi http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/nasa-antarctica-mass-gain/#bN... TL;DR: 1. This is one measurement among many. The honest scientist considers the whole of the data, rather than cherry picking the 1 among N measurements that support his hypothesis. 2. Existence of conflicting evidence is a good reason for more, not less, research. 3. There's nothing to suggest that one set of measurements reflects a trend. The global system is complex, and the existence of surprising phenomena should be a reason to try to understand better, not an excuse to bury our heads. 4. The relationship between stability and total mass is probably not strictly positive and is certainly not linear. So even in the best case scenario, the risk of destabilization should still be studies.
  - mturmon 10y ago
    Thanks for this. The comment you're replying to gave a link to one study of a complex phenomenon, that partially conflicts other studies. As you point out, there's not total consensus on what's happening. But the comment's suggestion that this one study settles the question of Antarctic mass loss is wrong. The linked study (Zwally et al.) uses satellite radar altimetry (ICESat) to measure height of Antarctic ice, and thereby quantify mass losses. Other studies use satellite-derived gravity (GRACE) to get more directly at mass changes. They conflict. One possible reason (among several) for the discrepancy is that the overall height of Antarctica is also changing as it rebounds from ice loss in the distant past, i.e., some of the height increase seen by Zwally et al. is due not to ice increases, but to inter-ice-age rebound of the continent beneath the ice. More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?utm_term=.86898c732394 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
- tdb7893 10y ago
  The article talks about how the increase in sea ice could be because of ice melted on the continent...
- staticelf 10y ago
  Dude, you don't even read your own sources. > "Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice." This is exactly what they say in the Bloomberg video also, if you had even dared to challange your incorrect beliefs.
  - cardiac 10y ago
    I understand the concept of a continent is difficult for you to grasp, but it's ok.
    - sctb 10y ago
      Please stop. We ban accounts that continue to comment like this.
M_Grey 10y ago
Don't feed the troll, it will just encourage more of the same behavior.
- hash-set 10y ago
  I'm tired of the "climate change is settled science" bit, okay--for centuries, people believed the sun revolved around the earth and nobody was allowed to question that. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship. And I'm with the poster who talked about "bullshitting" because climate change has a lot of the smells of that very thing.
  - kingdomcome50 10y ago
    Does it though? Your example about the sun and the earth is a false equivalency. In fact, you illustrate it yourself: "people believed". There was no (or very little) science involved in forming their conclusions; conclusions which science has now shown to be wrong. Ironically, in doing so, you've highlighted a great example to show why we use the scientific method and how well it works - thereby weakening your own position that the science is not settled. And to that end, I think you should take 15 minutes and read this essay by Isaav Asimov: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm So when you say that climate change isn't settled science, my response is that you may be a little right: there are those who may overstate the science in order to push their own agenda. But you are, without a doubt, very wrong.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    Mmm, so we should go off how the science "smells" vs what it says? Also, for everyone who suggests that belief in the reality of climate change is politically motivated - what is the actual motivation? Sure plenty stand to profit from the sustainable energy industry, but if it was all a hoax in the first place, why would so many be pushing to go the hard way? Why not just throw in with traditional energy industries? Obviously the answer is that only one side in this "debate" is primarily politically motivated, and it's the side that stands to lose a lot of easy money, not the side that stands to make some lesser amount of hard money.

Oh snap, he-she said. Can you say 'gimme money for a grant pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeee.' http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/ http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...

throwaway729 10y ago
If you're going to accuse others of politically motivated interpretation of data, the least you could do is abstain from the same activity. http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/nasa-antarctica-mass-gain/#bN88_wOEPkqi http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/nasa-antarctica-mass-gain/#bN... TL;DR: 1. This is one measurement among many. The honest scientist considers the whole of the data, rather than cherry picking the 1 among N measurements that support his hypothesis. 2. Existence of conflicting evidence is a good reason for more, not less, research. 3. There's nothing to suggest that one set of measurements reflects a trend. The global system is complex, and the existence of surprising phenomena should be a reason to try to understand better, not an excuse to bury our heads. 4. The relationship between stability and total mass is probably not strictly positive and is certainly not linear. So even in the best case scenario, the risk of destabilization should still be studies.
- mturmon 10y ago
  Thanks for this. The comment you're replying to gave a link to one study of a complex phenomenon, that partially conflicts other studies. As you point out, there's not total consensus on what's happening. But the comment's suggestion that this one study settles the question of Antarctic mass loss is wrong. The linked study (Zwally et al.) uses satellite radar altimetry (ICESat) to measure height of Antarctic ice, and thereby quantify mass losses. Other studies use satellite-derived gravity (GRACE) to get more directly at mass changes. They conflict. One possible reason (among several) for the discrepancy is that the overall height of Antarctica is also changing as it rebounds from ice loss in the distant past, i.e., some of the height increase seen by Zwally et al. is due not to ice increases, but to inter-ice-age rebound of the continent beneath the ice. More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?utm_term=.86898c732394 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
tdb7893 10y ago
The article talks about how the increase in sea ice could be because of ice melted on the continent...
staticelf 10y ago
Dude, you don't even read your own sources. > "Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice." This is exactly what they say in the Bloomberg video also, if you had even dared to challange your incorrect beliefs.
- cardiac 10y ago
  I understand the concept of a continent is difficult for you to grasp, but it's ok.
  - sctb 10y ago
    Please stop. We ban accounts that continue to comment like this.

M_Grey 10y ago

Don't feed the troll, it will just encourage more of the same behavior.

hash-set 10y ago
I'm tired of the "climate change is settled science" bit, okay--for centuries, people believed the sun revolved around the earth and nobody was allowed to question that. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship. And I'm with the poster who talked about "bullshitting" because climate change has a lot of the smells of that very thing.
- kingdomcome50 10y ago
  Does it though? Your example about the sun and the earth is a false equivalency. In fact, you illustrate it yourself: "people believed". There was no (or very little) science involved in forming their conclusions; conclusions which science has now shown to be wrong. Ironically, in doing so, you've highlighted a great example to show why we use the scientific method and how well it works - thereby weakening your own position that the science is not settled. And to that end, I think you should take 15 minutes and read this essay by Isaav Asimov: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm So when you say that climate change isn't settled science, my response is that you may be a little right: there are those who may overstate the science in order to push their own agenda. But you are, without a doubt, very wrong.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  Mmm, so we should go off how the science "smells" vs what it says? Also, for everyone who suggests that belief in the reality of climate change is politically motivated - what is the actual motivation? Sure plenty stand to profit from the sustainable energy industry, but if it was all a hoax in the first place, why would so many be pushing to go the hard way? Why not just throw in with traditional energy industries? Obviously the answer is that only one side in this "debate" is primarily politically motivated, and it's the side that stands to lose a lot of easy money, not the side that stands to make some lesser amount of hard money.