all 36 comments

[–]SoCo 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (26 children)

So the article claims a known process North Atlantic Oscillation is thought to have caused both the warming glacial loss and cooling glacial gain. Then, the article quote two people who guess or assume, without saying why, that this cooling is surely temporary and warming will be worse when it comes back.

[–]SMCAB 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Do not question the $cience.

[–]Canbot 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (23 children)

It's a known process yet they were shocked that the glacier gained ice. Maybe we should explore why they are so blinded by thier bias that they missed something so obvious and what else did they get wrong.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Yeah! Fuck science if it discovers anything new, right?

[–]Canbot 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

There is no new discovery. This is a known process. Thier predictions were wrong because they are all biased. No one with any authority contradicted those incorrect predictions because the entire system is corrupted by bias.

Climate science is no longer science.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There is no new discovery. This is a known process.

How come nature geoscience published their research paper then?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

No one with any authority contradicted those incorrect predictions because the entire system is corrupted by bias.

I haven't really got time for flat earthers.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I haven't really got time for flat earthers.

Slander and ad homonyms. Typical liberal response.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

How come nature geoscience published their research paper then?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

(Climate science isn't rocket science. Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. People denying the science are liars, or more deeply stupid than anyone I've met in person.)

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

What is new is that they admit "the science" was wrong. Well, not exactly.

It wasn't wrong. It cant be wrong because it's science and science is never wrong, right? This is the new science, that's why it was published. Every time the old science is proven wrong new science is published and the old science is forgotten about. It becomes the old science that everyone agrees is wrong because it's old science. It's completely different than new science because new science is never wrong.

The only irony here is how fanatical cultists like you who believe in the infallibility of science actually have the biggest egos.

Let's all forget that the old science was once published too and demand that being published is absolute proof of truth, and proof that this new truth is based on the smart people doing smart things and advancing human knowledge. The only true knowledge of humanity. The published knowledge. It is in the Bible now and obviously that means it has divine properties of invoation, discovery, and novelty.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Yes, science is the current best knowledge. The uncovering of new facts produces new understanding, and the scientific consensus occasionally moves to align with new facts.

More often a new fact doesn't fundamentally refute an understanding but adds to it.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is contributing to the ice mass loss in Greenland. An oscillation is affecting this one particular glacier, so that it has been going through a growth phase. It doesn't overthrow anything we know. It just adds some detailed knowledge about the micro-climate of one glacier.

The only irony here is how fanatical cultists like you who believe in the infallibility of science actually have the biggest egos.

On the contrary. The changing of one's understanding based on new facts is the opposite of having a big ego.

Let's all forget that the old science was once published too and demand that being published is absolute proof of truth, and proof that this new truth is based on the smart people doing smart things and advancing human knowledge. The only true knowledge of humanity. The published knowledge. It is in the Bible now and obviously that means it has divine properties of invoation, discovery, and novelty.

What?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, science is the current best knowledge.

It's not. Like I have said already no new information was presented here. They are simply presenting an excuse for why the prediction was wrong using known information.

The prediction was wrong because of bias. They cherry pick the data that gets them the conclusion they want.

Journals decide what gets published and what does not. They are all biased.

Your belief in the infallibility of science is religious fanaticism. You are a more devout believer in your religion than most traditional religious people.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The enhanced greenhouse effect is contributing to the ice mass loss in Greenland.

Show me the math on that. Let me run the experiment to verify your claims.

You can't because it is not real science in the traditional sense. It is modern "science" which is your religious claims. Claims made by "preists" of your religion that the common man has to simply believe "because it's science".

Real science says that man made co2 is a tiny fraction of all co2 in the atmosphere. Real science says that co2 only blocks a tiny fraction of the infrared spectrum and can NOT block the majority of radiant heat. Real science says that co2 increases lead to diminishing effects on insulation, meaning every addition to co2 blocks less heat than the last. Real science says that co2 is a tiny impact on temperatures compares to all the other contributors. It is far from the dominant effect and absolutely NOT a "thermostat" as your religion claims.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The changing of one's understanding based on new facts is the opposite of having a big ego.

The ego is your belief that adherence to a religious doctrine is more intelligent than thinking for yourself. That those who question the "science" because they think for themselves are somehow less intelligent than those who accept scientism without question.

[–]Airbus320 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lol

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then, the article quote two people who guess or assume, without saying why, that this cooling is surely temporary and warming will be worse when it comes back.

The problem is conservation of energy. The enhanced greenhouse effect means the earth is radiating less energy into space that it is absorbing from the sun.

And so the accelerating ice sheet mass loss that is affecting the rest of the world, and the rest of Greenland, must, at some point, distribute back to this glacier.

[–]Dunwidit 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Soon as I got to the part where it said "unparalleled" I stopped reading. I've been a alive longer than they've been studying that glacier...

[–]ephrem_moseley 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

CNN is fake news, generally speaking

[–]Lord_Falklands 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

isn't CNN the official channel for all cattle class airport lounges ?

[–]ephrem_moseley 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good point. It's how the oligarchs keep rich folx brainwashed.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's not what fake news is. Fake news isn't when you report on a scholarly paper, fake news is when you pretend that you're reporting on something, but you just made it up. Often for the political impact.

[–]ephrem_moseley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Semantics? booooooring.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fake news is an important problem, especially for democracies, where what people think to be true affects who is making decisions on how they can live, and what international diplomacy policies are enacted.

It's not a point of semantics to object to the dilution the meaning of the phrase by continually claiming "true reporting that I disagree with the conclusions of" is fake news. Because that hobbles discussion of some of the most serious issues of our time.

[–]SMCAB 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I love Thunberg. She asks the questions we all forgot we were supposed to be asking.