2016 Greenland melt season is off to the races - what's up with that?

Your punctured retorts ooze embarrassment, you know that ? Particularly with those silly little kids masks stuck on the end of them.
 
Milagro said:
My God, you are truly beyond hope. I keep this handy when I can't be bothered to argue with morons!!


Why It’s So Hard to Convince Warmists

lalalala-cant-hear-you.jpg


Many of the posters and readers at WUWT have expressed frustration at convincing warmists. Using facts and logic seem to fall on deaf ears. There are some interesting social sciences theories on why warmist are unresponsive. I know the social sciences aren’t a favored science with this group but if you’ll bear with me, you’ll hopefully see how social science can be useful in describing why warmists are unreachable. And possibly, what to do about it.

In their latest speeches on global warming, Obama and the Pope weren’t trying to convince skeptics that CAGW is real. Instead, they were sending signals to their supporters on what “all right thinking people” should be saying. This is classic in-group/out-group communication. Obama and the Pope were setting up the talking points for their in-group members to use to determine who can be considered part of the tribe and who should be rejected for being outside of it. This is a process called Othering. Othering turns political foes into non-beings. Others have no value. Others can be discounted and ignored. Others can be mocked.

Obama and the Pope are examples of bellwethers; the sheep with the bell that the other sheep follow. Bellwether is not a derogatory term, it’s a descriptive term. The job of a political bellwether is to indicate the position that their followers should take in their everyday conversations. Obama and the Pope’s latest speeches function as position papers for the delegates of all right thinking people. You meet these people at work, church, school, at the coffee house, etc. The delegates will mirror the words that the President or the Pope used to identify other in-group members, normalize beliefs and mock out-group members. One of the main themes of both speeches was shame. Shame on those who aren’t right thinking people. Shame that they aren’t as intelligent and capable as “us.”

That type of smugness is almost impossible to penetrate. When a skeptic questions a warmist’s view on global warming/climate change, the warmist hears something vastly different than what the skeptic is saying. A skeptic might say, “The models don’t match the actual measured results.” What the warmist hears is how stupid deniers are because that’s what John Stewart told him he should think. If the warmist doesn’t prove that he thinks skeptics are stupid then he might be confused for a denier! And no one wants to be identified with being a denier because they’re mocked, don’t get tenure and don’t get invited to the right parties. No amount of science can penetrate the ROI the warmist has internalized in believing in CAGW.

Many of the warmists are running on pure rational ignorance. Rational ignorance is a belief that the cost/benefit to researching every issue is so low as to be a net negative in time utilization. Thus the ignorance is rational and everyone utilizes this mental process on certain topics. People who are rationally ignorant about global warming look to bellwethers that support their gut stance. Rationally ignorant warmists would look to world leaders, mockutainers and warmist scientists for guidance on how to communicate their position on global warming.

Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. To question the rationally ignorant warmist is to question the field of science as a whole (to be a science denier) or to question the leadership of their favorite bellwether personalities. This will cause the rationally ignorant warmist to become defensive and try to stand up for their favorite bellwether. The rationally ignorant will also point to their favorite bellwethers and say, “Who am I to doubt all these intelligent people?” It’s intellectually offshoring. It’s lazy. It’s human nature.

The scientific method rejects outright in-group/out groups, Othering, bellwethers and rational ignorance. A scientist is supposed to follow the results on an experiment even if the results don’t support his hypothesis. The scientist is clearly not supposed to rig the data to ensure he gets invited to a party with the right people or continued funding. But science has a poor track record on controversial topics. It often takes decades to accept new theories that are clear winners (e.g., continental drift).

Scientists are still social animals. Social animals follow hierarchy and incentives. If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers. Change the economic incentives for the global warming scientific paper mill. Otherwise you’re stuck debating only the people who are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so. Rare is the person intellectually honest enough to bite the hand that feeds or is willing to violate social norms to speak the truth.
Click to expand...

Bump
 
Our Planet’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone

amaps.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png


Update, March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.* ("Most unusually warm" is not to be confused with "warmest ever measured." Average temperatures are much more difficult to calculate than deviations from average, for many technical reasons—including the fact that there's a strong seasonality in average global temperatures. Climate scientists also strongly prefer discussing deviations from average because that's what matters to plants, animals, and humans adapting to climate change.) The new NASA data confirms unofficial data released earlier this month showing a dramatic and ongoing surge in the planet's temperature—if anything, that data, upon which the previous versions of this post were based, were an underestimate. On Twitter, Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which maintains the NASA temperature database, noted that February’s temperature record was “special” and commented simply: “Wow.”

NASA’s global temperature data is measured from a 1951-1980 baseline, about 0.3 degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels. That means February 2016 was the first month in history that global average temperatures passed the 1.5 degree Celsius mark. Also, since last month’s warmth was concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere (2.76 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline) and the Arctic (5.36 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline), these regions of our planet were also record warm, likely the warmest they’ve been for at least thousands of years. As I said in the previous version of this post—even though this surge of warmth is likely only temporary, it is a major milestone moment for humanity and our relationship to our planet.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html
 
No matter how much dough Big Oil gave deniers, the deal will be signed - proving them liars.

They wail, they may moan, but they're nearly alone. They look more and more like frustrated criers.
 
Legion Troll said:
No matter how much dough Big Oil gave deniers, the deal will be signed - proving them liars.

They wail, they may moan, but they're nearly alone. They look more and more like frustrated criers.
Click to expand...

No matter how much libtard ecoterrorist whine, they still drive Dino.
Walk the talk hypocrite
 
Legion Troll said:
Did you read what the PDF you cited says?


Using simulated climate data from the comprehensive coupled climate model IPSL CM4, we simulate the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) during the Eemian interglaciation with the three-dimensional ice sheet model SICOPOLIS. The Eemian is a period 126 000 yr before present (126 ka) with
Arctic temperatures comparable to projections for the end of this century. In our simulation, the northeastern part of the GrIS is unstable and retreats significantly, despite moderate melt rates. This result is found to be robust to perturbations within a wide parameter space of key parameters of the ice sheet model, the choice of initial ice temperature, and has been reproduced with climate forcing from a second coupled climate model, the CCSM3. It is shown that the northeast GrIS is the most vulnerable. Even a small increase in melt re-
moves many years of ice accumulation, giving a large mass imbalance and triggering the strong ice-elevation feedback. Unlike the south and west, melting in the northeast is not compensated by high accumulation. The analogy with modern warming suggests that in coming decades, positive feedbacks could increase the rate of mass loss of the northeastern GrIS, exceeding the recent observed thinning rates in the south


http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1239/2012/tc-6-1239-2012.pdf
Click to expand...

Keyword "simulated" you know what that means right? How it works?
 
I Love America said:
How much cooling can we expect from these measures? Did your masters tell you? I will understand if you obfuscate
Click to expand...

Did I claim that you should expect any cooling from these measures?

I'd be shocked if you could even name these supposed "measures" without Googling.

Do you always reflexively oppose initiatives without knowing what they are?

That was a rhetorical question.
 
Legion Troll said:
Did I claim that you should expect any cooling from these measures?

I'd be shocked if you could even name these supposed "measures" without Googling.

Do you always reflexively oppose initiatives without knowing what they are?

That was a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

You seem very ignorant about this topic you start numerous threads about. Very Deshtard like
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top