Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

You dont want to tangle with me. I'm better at this than you are. The funny thing is you think your arguments are original.

 

Seeing how that 'one guy' fooled everyone with his data including the IPCC (basically confirmation bias in action), it shows a serious flaw.

 

The most ironic thing about conservatives is the same group of researchers who tell them the sea ice in Antarctica is growing, are the same researchers telling them why it's growing. But conservatives will ignore the why but believe the data. Amazing the cherry picking they do. Confirmation bias at it's finest.

 

The same researchers said it would shrink but now after the fact have come up with numerous hypothesis, none of which are proven, to try and explain their error. Thanks for the great display of confirmation bias.

 

We ignore it because they predicted the opposite. The why is an after the fact rationalization, post hoc. Never underestimate ones ability to rationalize failure, ESPECIALLY AN ACADEMIC.

 

Hahaha, the fact you think I'm taking your argument seriously is the best part. You don't even understand the role peer review journals play in the scientific community, which means you literally have no clue what goes on in the real world of science. Just a comedian here for my entertainment... aka a conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

It's been growing for almost a decade. They have discussed the reasons for a long time now. The fact you think it still surprises scientists in 2014 is hilarious.

 

They might as well be consulting astrologers about what will happen. They have no clue, and the worst part is that they don't know they have no clue. That's always a dangerous combination.

 

Those predictions were a long time ago, lol. Then scientists studied why it is growing. That's how science works.

 

Pure hyperbole you are losing the argument and you know it.

 

Why should it surprise them since 2004 it has been growing in opposition to their models? The rationalization for it came after.

 

They are banging a square peg into a round hole because if you bang it hard enough it will go through.

 

Haha, yes... someone who doesn't believe in peer reviewed science is winning the argument. Keep thinking that.

 

You are seeing confirmation bias in action and it ain't us.

- - - Updated - - -

Peer review is also fraught with confirmation bias.

 

Yes, because of all the research you have done in Antarctica. You should post your findings to some peer reviewed journals. You might win a Nobel Prize for your great thoughts. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because of all the research you have done in Antarctica. You should post your findings to some peer reviewed journals. You might win a Nobel Prize for your great thoughts. Lol

 

If people who read peer review articles think they are wrong, they can submit their own results and findings and go through the same process. Just because thousands of scientists disagree with you, doesn't mean they have confirmation bias. Maybe the findings just aren't what you want them to be, lol.

 

LOL, you appear not to be aware of the problems with peer review but don't let that stop you from using your appeal to authority.

 

Lol, you are the one using a graph made 14 years ago as evidence that all science is fraudulent. I couldn't make this kind of comedy up if I tried.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, you just don't like the results scientists are coming too. There is a reason your conservative bloggers don't post their studies in peer reviewed journals. Because then they would actually have to prove the crap they are saying. It's hilarious how you guys work. You'll critique an entire process of proving scientific findings but believe anyone who says something you agree with regardless if it has been reviewed or not.

That's confirmation bias at it's finest. But we all know conservatives and science don't mix. So you gotta come up with something no matter how silly it is. Even discrediting the entire peer review process.

 

Hypothesis are not results.

 

There's overwhelming evidence agreed upon by thousands of expert environmental scientists throughout the world that prove global warming is being increased by man made actions. It's not even a debate any more in the real scientific community. Only people still discussing it are paid for shills like Dailycaller.com bloggers or Heartland Institute clowns. Otherwise, the real academic world, it's settled science. The only question now is what are the effects going to be on the Earth.

 

So, I have stated earlier in this forum that 100% of scientist agree man contributes to warming but do not agree on how much, why, or what the result will be or if any result will be bad. So far the current hypothesis have run into problems with actual observations, like predicting less ice in the Antarctic. So, what's your point other than an appeal to authority and a sense of self righteousness?

 

Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

How about these?

 

Who's predicting less sea ice in the arctic? They have studied the increase of sea ice in antarctica for the last decade. One hypothesis is that the decreasing land ice (which is much more telling of global warming) is causing a cooling in the water causing a larger span of sea ice. Which is nothing but a frozen layer that melts anyways.

However, the ice sheets (land ice) is melting at a rapid rate causing sea levels to rise. So not sure what you are talking about. But I understand you have to try.

- - - Updated - - -

For every 1,000 peer reviewed articles confirming global warming, there is about 1 denying it. No one is saying there aren't deniers out there. They are a very small group though.

 

Who's is a tricky contraction. Are you saying who is or who was? A prediction means that you are talking about the future. The who's are now saying that what is happening today will happen tomorrow because in the past the who's were predicting that sea ice would decrease.

 

Who are these people and when were these predictions? From what I've read they've known about the increases for over a decade. I think you guys are just making stuff up again. And by the way the ice sheets are melting at a rapid pace. Much more significant than seasonal sea ice. I notice how you guys never mention that. Confirmation bias much?

 

You have already read the IPCC predictions from the AR4 they were posted in this thread multiple times dont play coy.