Synthetic Life created (yes, for real)

You make it sound like there has been a large change in the amount of ice at the north pole. There hasn't been. It's always been the case that in summer the ice shrinks to something like 30% its winter size. Ships and whales have always been able to travel through it in summer, assuming they can avoid icebergs.

If you want to get statistics out I'll look at them. Best to start a new thread however.

 

It's an interesting topic.

It occurs to me, same as with the CFC debate, that the cause of having ice on the poles in the first place is the lack of sunlight there, especially during winter. So if it were the case that the area started losing ice, then, in applying Occam's razor, the first thing one would look for is a change in the amount of sun it is getting.

I don't trust the gov't scientists, or really any climate scientist because I think they have a vested economic interest in the data they output, and scandals to this effect have already come out. And I'm not a climate scientist, so the best I can do is speculate from a semi-educated perspective.

Assuming their graph is correct:



It may be related to total solar irradiance. Although, really who knows? It's not statistically a large enough time-frame to draw any meaningful conclusions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...dsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

And lots of others.

The key fact to remember here is that all of these tens of thousands of scientists are out of a job if it so happens were is no disaster to avert. They all have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that a) it's serious, and b) it's our fault (and therefore something can be done about it.) - And this is by no means a new structure. This is just the latest iteration of the clergy as far as I am concerned.

Consider how much funding comes from the IPCC, NASA, the EPA, and other government related organizations. If 99% of the science for a given field came from the makers of chocolate bars, and it all pertained to how bad vegetables were for you, and then corruption and misappropriation and mis-publication of data came out multiple times, don't you think this would be pretty adequate grounds for requiring a higher standard of proof from these people? But instead for some reason people give them the benefit of the doubt more so than they normally would. Completely back-the-front logic.

The problem is two fold:
1. There is no empirical evidence to verify this model.
2. The model is in contradiction with thermodynamics.

"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics"
Full Text: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

 

What are you stupid?

Altruism:

Statement:

Altruist statement highlighted in red.

Clear now?

 

Leave your (false) ego at the door when you come into SFA, it will not help you one bit.