arctic ice increases 60%

You have made it quite clear for several years that you do. I can't rest while the propaganda machine keeps humming, much as I would like to.
Thanks for the nice remark regarding the little build. This time I will build something more conventional.

 

I kind of like the reasoning that with 54,062 members in this forum, the odds are 50/50 that it was you that gave neg points.

 

If you'll look back 3 posts, you'll see it was micah who claimed hoytedow started this thread, not Baltic Bandit.

Go back and review micah and hoyt's contributions.

Here's pretty much what micah says,
Global warming =



Hoyt says things like

If you want to improve the discussion, you should talk to them.

 

Thanks but I prefer to live in a First World country.

Bangladesh hasn't seen anything close to a 1m sea level rise anyway so I think your only point is somewhere other than in your post.

PDW

 

this isn't a discussion that can really be improved IMO, because like the things I listed, for AGW deniers it is about belief: belief that somehow there is this grand conspiracy against science.

As Daniel Kahneman and others have shown experimentally, a factual discussion that undermines the beliefs someone has actually has the perverse effect of strengthening those beliefs http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/121/4/446/
http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/39465
etc.

So these beliefs about AGW being a myth are in fact in the same class of beliefs as those strongly held ones (such as by well informed folks like Vladimir Putin) on ************* being "taught" and the existence of God (which Kant himself so eloquently proved was inherently irrational).

that calling this out offends some folks - well facts about how they reason do sometimes offend folks.

 

Where has there been a prediction of a 1 meter increase by today?

your claim was that there has been no sea level increase, and yet that's not the case. there has been and there has been incursion of saltwater into freshwater aquifers in many coastal areas.

the point is that by the time you wait for 1Meter increase, you have huge thermal momentum that you basically cannot turn around

 

The odds were based on the number of individuals with whom I was interacting. I know that had it been you I would have taken a bigger hit.

 

You are mis-stating the problem.
There is a vast difference between sea level rise and salt water intrusion into the water table.
A course of study in hydrology will teach you that when too much extraction from the water table occurs, it creates a cone of depression in the water table allowing salt water to flow into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_intrusion

Thermal momentum thermal schmomentum.

 

Rainforest absorption of CO2 becoming erratic | THE INDEPENDENT

 

The whole rep point system is a bad idea.

 

And a course in reading the data will show you that there is already intrusion DUE TO SEA LEVEL RiSE

But again, on your part this is faith, and thus any contradictory data only makes your faith stronger.... meh

 

First, I owe Mr rasorinc an apology, since he is the one who is the "thread owner", not Hoytedow as I wrote yesterday. Not sure if he's considered torching it for the insurance money, but it's a thought.

I hope someone read the link about the sea ice I posted yesterday, it really was an interesting story by an honest man. Who else but a man of integrity would admit to using his jacket as a sail to reach 40mph on skates, and then admit to being called foolish by the local post-office lady?

One interesting thought he shared was his impression that the AGW crowd were thrilled when the ice melted, and annoyed when it came back so well. It would appear some folks actually want the planet to heat up and the oceans to rise, so they can say "told you so!" (and cash in big time, and be famous and powerful).

I have good news for this kind. The planet WILL experience unprecedented warming. Very nasty warming, and yes, on account of people. Just not via naughty carbon. Here's the prediction, from a very trustworthy Source.

The Revelation, Ch 16
v8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
v9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Read the context, as always. We're not there yet, and the kickoff is a closely guarded secret. Once that programme is under way, though, it won't be hard to tick the events off as they happen.

In the meantime, the sea level isn't powering up the scale, there's more than enough polar ice at both ends to embarass a whole armada of fools, and the planet hasn't warmed in 17 years. I'm much more worried about Fukushima poisoning the Pacific, but it doesn't seem to get much press. Funny, that; considering it's an order or two of magnitude worse than Chernobyl. Maybe we need a thread on how to integrate Geiger counters with plotters and GPS; and the various means of shielding and decontamination suitable for vessels. Lead hulls, anyone?

 

No, the intrusion is due to over-pumping from the wells.

 

you know this hoyte because you've been there and done the measurements that refute the science based study I cited? ROTFLMAO!!

another proof that contradictory evidence makes belief stronger

 

So Micah how do you know he's "an honest man"? or is it just that his spinning of his anecdotal evidence happens to correspond with what you believe?

If you read the citations I presented for belief based rejection of facts, your and his reframing of the veracity of verifiable data and science is in fact predictable.


Frankly I don't know if this guy is "honest" or "dishonest" (depends to some extent what your definition of honesty is)

What I do know is that he's ignorant. when you read stuff like

its proof positive that he really doesn't know what he's talking about. Precisely because personal experiential claims are useless in science.