Why do we humans think that we're at a point now such that we can conceive of anything that could exist, and therefore that anything of which we cannot conceive could not exist?
We keep pushing the boundaries of our "box," but we are still and always will be limited to thinking inside a "box."
Black lie is what I call it. These scum knew what they were doing. They've been told, repeatedly, that they are wrong and why they are wrong, and they just dismiss and ignore everything and say those lies again anyway. They were printing propaganda.
What's wrong with, "Hey, if you (fix this bug|add this feature), I'll pay you $x. No rush, do it in your spare time, and whenever you get it done you'll get paid"?
You're demanding a citation for my assertion that houses are burglarized and burn down more often than once a millennium
I live for 10 years in a city with population that has increased from 4.5 million 10 years ago to 6 million now. There have been precisely 4 big incidents of fire - one in a very low tech market, one in an office, 2 in residential houses. The office fire was all about smoke - building + furniture survived but basement fire released such smoke that some people were suffocated / jumped to death. Out of about million houses in 10 years. Expectation value of a particular house being destroyed in fire - less than once in a million years.
1. Nice strawman. "Big incidents of fire" are not the point at hand. The issue is property being damaged or destroyed by fire.
Or if you honestly believe that in a city of 6 million people with 1 million "houses" (and using that term rather than more accurate ones suggests you haven't done any research) that property has only been damaged by fire 4 times, you must be delusional or lying. Go look up some actual records and come back to me. I live in a town of around 20,000 and I hear fire trucks from just the closest fire station going to calls nearly every day. Even if half of those were not fire-related, and even if only half of fire-related calls were actual fires, that would still be 91 fires per year, and if only half of those resulted in actual property damage, that'd still be 45 cases per year. And that doesn't even count the other fire stations in town. Your city is 300 times larger than mine. It doesn't take a genius to do the math. Seriously man, if fires were so rare, we wouldn't have such stringent building codes. What are you thinking?
2. It's absurd to even make an argument about "a particular house being destroyed in fire less than once in a million years." That's just silly. Be realistic and make a rational argument--at least, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Burglaries are more common, but complete burglaries are nearly unheard of. Burglars are scared - so they quickly grab cash, gold, and sometimes small electronics that they understand - like mobile phone. So yes, I am not sure data loss due to burglaries or fire are more than once a millenium events.
1. Another irrelevant strawman. What even is a "complete burglary"? Does that include the refrigerator? the toilet? the house itself?
2. News flash: most criminals--especially smash'n'grab types--are not smart. They don't care whether they "understand" what they steal--they aren't interested in using what they take. They only care if it has resale value--and all computers do. They'll happily snap up your laptop, desktop, and any external drives that may be attached--or they'll snap up your laptop bag and everything in it. Another, albeit less common, type of criminal is one interested in identify theft, and those types will most definitely want to steal your data, so they'll take anything that looks like a data storage device.
3. Again, I live in a small town, and I can find reports of petty theft and break-ins in the paper anytime I look. A month ago the gas station down the street was held at gunpoint by three men--and this is a small town with no more than average crime! And your city is 300 times larger. You're deluding yourself.
The post I was replying to already admitted those events happen once in 100 or 1000 years, so if you argue about whether it is 1000 or 100 years, it is pedantic in that regard. Without even the rigour of citation expected of a good pedant.
Allow me to be more pedantic for you:
* 100 -> 1000 is an order of magnitude--it is significant. * What does it even mean to say "those events happen once in 100 or 1000 years"? Those events
It's the other way around. Democracy works best in good times; in horrible times, you want a dictatorship.
No, having a dictatorship makes horrible times. You know, absolute power and all that. Your logic seems to be, "bad times + dictatorship = good times = dictator abdicating and instating democracy." I don't know where you come up with that. I can't think of such an altruistic dictator--people don't become dictators by being altruistic. Not to mention that you can't flip a switch between one form of government and the other--an oppressed people can't suddenly be proactive citizens doing their civic duty; just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. And what qualifies as "bad times" anyway?
Democracy need not exclude strong leadership. The USA has had strong leadership in the past. It's been a while. That doesn't mean we should crown a king.
I rest my case. All you do is make assertions and childish insults while ignoring evidence that contradicts your position. You haven't made a logical argument in rebuttal yet. It's because of people like you that Hans von Storch said that the AGW crowd has overplayed its hand and lost the public's trust.
Of course, there are indeed many people who are convinced by, "You're an idiot."
I hope so too! I'd like to try it, but I'm not interested enough to deal with out-of-tree modules, especially for workstations and laptops. In the meantime, Btrfs and Tux3 look promising.
You're demanding a citation for my assertion that houses are burglarized and burn down more often than once a millennium?...
I'll play the same card against you: Citation needed that local backups are more cost effective. I think most people are better served with automatic, online, remote backups like CrashPlan, Dropbox, etc. for the simple reason that no further interaction is required. The user doesn't have to maintain backup hardware, replace it when it fails, copy old backups to new hardware, deal with obtuse backup software settings, etc.
I've helped people with this issue before, and they often end up with 5 different local backup schemes on 5 different devices--some internal, some external--using 5 different kinds of backup software, and none of them are up-to-date or even working properly anymore. On top of that, they install something like QuickBooks, which by default wants to backup its own data with its own backup app, which expires yearly.
Then I come in, install Dropbox and/or CrashPlan, and they don't have to mess with it anymore. It just works. On the rare occasion they need to restore data, it being remote and online is not a big deal--it would probably take them twice as long to cobble together a coherent restore set from all their "local backups." And just as important, they won't get bitten by a failing backup drive just when they need to restore, because they haven't been monitoring the SMART data on their external USB drive.
In short, I think your point falls flat on its face for the large majority of computer users.
I read through most of that page. I'm not sure if you did. It mostly focuses on Scafetta's planetary orbit ideas and his "widget." My quote of Scafetta was about the sun, not planetary orbits.
I also think that article has a major flaw--or they're just being misleading--in that it projects Scafetta's predictions backwards to year 1 AD, and compares it to "hindcasting" models which attempt to reconstruct temperatures that far back. I don't think Scafetta intended his projections to work in reverse, so it's plain silly--or simply disingenuous--to do so. This diagram looks ridiculous, and I'm sure Scafetta would agree. But it seems to me that he's limiting himself to the data he actually has, and isn't attempting to go beyond it. These reconstructions they compare it to are not only intended to go far back in time, but they are also guesses. We have no temperature data going back that far; and you can talk about ice cores all you want, but while interesting, that data is still not reproducible without a time machine, so it isn't conclusive.
Two other observations: 1) They ridicule him for publishing in a journal about atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics rather than a journal about climate--as if the physics of the atmosphere and sun and earth aren't closely-enough related to the climate! That seems disingenuous to me. 2) I wouldn't call the Skeptical Science site an impartial source--they're clearly trying to sell stuff, as you can see from the multiple books they offer for sale on every page. Now no one is truly impartial--even research scientists have to earn a living, so they have to sell their grant proposals--but Scafetta isn't selling to the general public like Skeptical Science is. So I think SS deserves to be taken with an extra grain of salt.
In short, I don't think that article you cited debunks his claim about the sun's influence. At best it rebuts some of his other ideas; at worst it's a gross misrepresentation of his ideas and a great example of how any data can be presented in a misleading way to make whatever point you want.
If you have a rational rebuttal--rather than more of "you're an idiot"--I'll be glad to discuss it further.
By the way, your continued reliance on calling others "idiots" says more about you than it does about the "idiots."
Funny thing is, the "deniers" or "denialists" or whatever the word-of-the-day is don't have to resort to petty insults to make their point. You should listen to Hans von Storch when he says that the AGW crowd have overstated their case and lost the public's trust.
One can only hope you're right about that. But I wouldn't count on it: both sides are deeply entrenched and uninterested in truth, merely advancing their own agendas.
We know, pretty much, since the mid-1800s (starting with Fourier) what effect that CO2 will have on our atmosphere. We monitor it both in amount and radioisotope and it matches expectations pretty much spot on.
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
I rest my case. You are plain wrong. So, are you lying or ignorant?
Oh, is that why the lead author of the IPCC report explicitly said that their models don't match reality over the last 20 years?
Care to provide a source for that? What did he say, exactly?
Reality has proven the models wrong.
Again, according to what data? Something you read on a blog, or can you point to actual measurements (and please without cherry-picking endpoints -- that way you can manufacture any trend)?
Sure, and thanks for asking. This interview is what I'm referring to. Here are a few quotes from it:
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
Back to my reply. You said:
The sun is accounted for! We can measure the solar irradiation, and it hasn't increased recently. The sun has been in the models all the time, and it needs to be to for them to match measured data, for obvious reasons. What kind of idiots do you take climatologists for? Yes, the sun has caused some of the warming, primarily during the first half of the 1900s. Now, it's the CO2.
Did you read the link I posted? Here, I'll quote it again:
“What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.” --physicist Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
I'm not a physicist, so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion as he is. But if you have a good rebuttal for Scafetta's argument--and note that he cites the entire century, not just the second half--please do share it.
So, as requested, I have pointed you to claims made by actual scientists. Feel free to provide the same for your side--I'm sure there are similar quotations available online which would contr
Ok, so he's not an idiot because he's wrong...why is he an idiot then? Because he disagrees with you? Is he an idiot but not wrong?
What even is "a scientific view on climate"? One that is pro-AGW? Is anyone who doesn't believe in AGW "anti-science"? What about the scientists who are not pro-AGW? Are they also illiterate? Are they "anti-science"?
Your arguments are simply assertions and ad hominems. Oh, wait, your insults were orthogonal to the rest of your comments, so your arguments weren't ad hominems...right.
I consistently see the pro-AGW crowd base their arguments on ad hominems and appeals to ridicule and appeals to emotion, with simple "no evidence against!" and "consensus!" assertions thrown in. But I do not see the anti-AGW (or even the merely skeptical crowd) resort to such irrational ploys nearly as often; instead they tend to make logical arguments. Then, instead of making rebuttals, the "alarmists" say things like, "You're an idiot. The science is settled; we have consensus. The only question is whether it's too late to do anything."
Sadly, many "sheeple" are convinced by such empty rhetoric.
Oh man, it's a death spiral! The ice is going down the drain! And if it showed the antarctic ice, it'd be spinning the other way!
Seriously, that circular graph is misleading. At level 8, the area of the circle would be about 200, but at level 16, the area would be about 800. Not linear at all. Nice way to scare people, though.
I'm not an expert here, but isn't that graph misleading? Projecting onto a circular graph makes it appear less than linear, because the circumference increases faster than the radius.
Besides, how can volume be measured from space? Can a satellite see through the ice deep below the surface of the ocean?
Slashdot Mirror
...Generalize much?
How did you feel at the time about being in the Girl Scouts?
You can't conceive of it? So what? :)
Why do we humans think that we're at a point now such that we can conceive of anything that could exist, and therefore that anything of which we cannot conceive could not exist?
We keep pushing the boundaries of our "box," but we are still and always will be limited to thinking inside a "box."
Black lie is what I call it. These scum knew what they were doing. They've been told, repeatedly, that they are wrong and why they are wrong, and they just dismiss and ignore everything and say those lies again anyway. They were printing propaganda.
Wait, which side are you talking about?
Not to mention Alt+/ in Emacs.
What's wrong with, "Hey, if you (fix this bug|add this feature), I'll pay you $x. No rush, do it in your spare time, and whenever you get it done you'll get paid"?
Ok, I see 3 issues with your post :
1. Incorrect or at least hugely unsubstantiated :
You're demanding a citation for my assertion that houses are burglarized and burn down more often than once a millennium
I live for 10 years in a city with population that has increased from 4.5 million 10 years ago to 6 million now. There have been precisely 4 big incidents of fire - one in a very low tech market, one in an office, 2 in residential houses. The office fire was all about smoke - building + furniture survived but basement fire released such smoke that some people were suffocated / jumped to death. Out of about million houses in 10 years. Expectation value of a particular house being destroyed in fire - less than once in a million years.
1. Nice strawman. "Big incidents of fire" are not the point at hand. The issue is property being damaged or destroyed by fire.
Or if you honestly believe that in a city of 6 million people with 1 million "houses" (and using that term rather than more accurate ones suggests you haven't done any research) that property has only been damaged by fire 4 times, you must be delusional or lying. Go look up some actual records and come back to me. I live in a town of around 20,000 and I hear fire trucks from just the closest fire station going to calls nearly every day. Even if half of those were not fire-related, and even if only half of fire-related calls were actual fires, that would still be 91 fires per year, and if only half of those resulted in actual property damage, that'd still be 45 cases per year. And that doesn't even count the other fire stations in town. Your city is 300 times larger than mine. It doesn't take a genius to do the math. Seriously man, if fires were so rare, we wouldn't have such stringent building codes. What are you thinking?
2. It's absurd to even make an argument about "a particular house being destroyed in fire less than once in a million years." That's just silly. Be realistic and make a rational argument--at least, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Burglaries are more common, but complete burglaries are nearly unheard of. Burglars are scared - so they quickly grab cash, gold, and sometimes small electronics that they understand - like mobile phone. So yes, I am not sure data loss due to burglaries or fire are more than once a millenium events.
1. Another irrelevant strawman. What even is a "complete burglary"? Does that include the refrigerator? the toilet? the house itself?
2. News flash: most criminals--especially smash'n'grab types--are not smart. They don't care whether they "understand" what they steal--they aren't interested in using what they take. They only care if it has resale value--and all computers do. They'll happily snap up your laptop, desktop, and any external drives that may be attached--or they'll snap up your laptop bag and everything in it. Another, albeit less common, type of criminal is one interested in identify theft, and those types will most definitely want to steal your data, so they'll take anything that looks like a data storage device.
3. Again, I live in a small town, and I can find reports of petty theft and break-ins in the paper anytime I look. A month ago the gas station down the street was held at gunpoint by three men--and this is a small town with no more than average crime! And your city is 300 times larger. You're deluding yourself.
The post I was replying to already admitted those events happen once in 100 or 1000 years, so if you argue about whether it is 1000 or 100 years, it is pedantic in that regard. Without even the rigour of citation expected of a good pedant.
Allow me to be more pedantic for you:
* 100 -> 1000 is an order of magnitude--it is significant.
* What does it even mean to say "those events happen once in 100 or 1000 years"? Those events
The developer of SSH made the decision that
...?
It's the other way around. Democracy works best in good times; in horrible times, you want a dictatorship.
No, having a dictatorship makes horrible times. You know, absolute power and all that. Your logic seems to be, "bad times + dictatorship = good times = dictator abdicating and instating democracy." I don't know where you come up with that. I can't think of such an altruistic dictator--people don't become dictators by being altruistic. Not to mention that you can't flip a switch between one form of government and the other--an oppressed people can't suddenly be proactive citizens doing their civic duty; just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. And what qualifies as "bad times" anyway?
Democracy need not exclude strong leadership. The USA has had strong leadership in the past. It's been a while. That doesn't mean we should crown a king.
I rest my case. All you do is make assertions and childish insults while ignoring evidence that contradicts your position. You haven't made a logical argument in rebuttal yet. It's because of people like you that Hans von Storch said that the AGW crowd has overplayed its hand and lost the public's trust.
Of course, there are indeed many people who are convinced by, "You're an idiot."
I hope so too! I'd like to try it, but I'm not interested enough to deal with out-of-tree modules, especially for workstations and laptops. In the meantime, Btrfs and Tux3 look promising.
You're demanding a citation for my assertion that houses are burglarized and burn down more often than once a millennium? ...
I'll play the same card against you: Citation needed that local backups are more cost effective. I think most people are better served with automatic, online, remote backups like CrashPlan, Dropbox, etc. for the simple reason that no further interaction is required. The user doesn't have to maintain backup hardware, replace it when it fails, copy old backups to new hardware, deal with obtuse backup software settings, etc.
I've helped people with this issue before, and they often end up with 5 different local backup schemes on 5 different devices--some internal, some external--using 5 different kinds of backup software, and none of them are up-to-date or even working properly anymore. On top of that, they install something like QuickBooks, which by default wants to backup its own data with its own backup app, which expires yearly.
Then I come in, install Dropbox and/or CrashPlan, and they don't have to mess with it anymore. It just works. On the rare occasion they need to restore data, it being remote and online is not a big deal--it would probably take them twice as long to cobble together a coherent restore set from all their "local backups." And just as important, they won't get bitten by a failing backup drive just when they need to restore, because they haven't been monitoring the SMART data on their external USB drive.
In short, I think your point falls flat on its face for the large majority of computer users.
Here's a handy tool to watch for bitrot: http://onethingwell.org/post/20775845211/chafifi
Houses burn down and are burglarized much more often than that.
No, it's out-of-tree. Important distinction.
I read through most of that page. I'm not sure if you did. It mostly focuses on Scafetta's planetary orbit ideas and his "widget." My quote of Scafetta was about the sun, not planetary orbits.
I also think that article has a major flaw--or they're just being misleading--in that it projects Scafetta's predictions backwards to year 1 AD, and compares it to "hindcasting" models which attempt to reconstruct temperatures that far back. I don't think Scafetta intended his projections to work in reverse, so it's plain silly--or simply disingenuous--to do so. This diagram looks ridiculous, and I'm sure Scafetta would agree. But it seems to me that he's limiting himself to the data he actually has, and isn't attempting to go beyond it. These reconstructions they compare it to are not only intended to go far back in time, but they are also guesses. We have no temperature data going back that far; and you can talk about ice cores all you want, but while interesting, that data is still not reproducible without a time machine, so it isn't conclusive.
Two other observations: 1) They ridicule him for publishing in a journal about atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics rather than a journal about climate--as if the physics of the atmosphere and sun and earth aren't closely-enough related to the climate! That seems disingenuous to me. 2) I wouldn't call the Skeptical Science site an impartial source--they're clearly trying to sell stuff, as you can see from the multiple books they offer for sale on every page. Now no one is truly impartial--even research scientists have to earn a living, so they have to sell their grant proposals--but Scafetta isn't selling to the general public like Skeptical Science is. So I think SS deserves to be taken with an extra grain of salt.
In short, I don't think that article you cited debunks his claim about the sun's influence. At best it rebuts some of his other ideas; at worst it's a gross misrepresentation of his ideas and a great example of how any data can be presented in a misleading way to make whatever point you want.
If you have a rational rebuttal--rather than more of "you're an idiot"--I'll be glad to discuss it further.
By the way, your continued reliance on calling others "idiots" says more about you than it does about the "idiots."
Funny thing is, the "deniers" or "denialists" or whatever the word-of-the-day is don't have to resort to petty insults to make their point. You should listen to Hans von Storch when he says that the AGW crowd have overstated their case and lost the public's trust.
One can only hope you're right about that. But I wouldn't count on it: both sides are deeply entrenched and uninterested in truth, merely advancing their own agendas.
We know, pretty much, since the mid-1800s (starting with Fourier) what effect that CO2 will have on our atmosphere. We monitor it both in amount and radioisotope and it matches expectations pretty much spot on.
By the way, here's a source that completely contradicts your assertion: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html One choice quote:
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
I rest my case. You are plain wrong. So, are you lying or ignorant?
Oh, is that why the lead author of the IPCC report explicitly said that their models don't match reality over the last 20 years?
Care to provide a source for that? What did he say, exactly?
Reality has proven the models wrong.
Again, according to what data? Something you read on a blog, or can you point to actual measurements (and please without cherry-picking endpoints -- that way you can manufacture any trend)?
Sure, and thanks for asking. This interview is what I'm referring to. Here are a few quotes from it:
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
Back to my reply. You said:
The sun is accounted for! We can measure the solar irradiation, and it hasn't increased recently. The sun has been in the models all the time, and it needs to be to for them to match measured data, for obvious reasons. What kind of idiots do you take climatologists for? Yes, the sun has caused some of the warming, primarily during the first half of the 1900s. Now, it's the CO2.
Did you read the link I posted? Here, I'll quote it again:
“What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.” --physicist Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
I'm not a physicist, so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion as he is. But if you have a good rebuttal for Scafetta's argument--and note that he cites the entire century, not just the second half--please do share it.
So, as requested, I have pointed you to claims made by actual scientists. Feel free to provide the same for your side--I'm sure there are similar quotations available online which would contr
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -1
30% Troll
40% Insightful
10% Flamebait
Extra 'Troll' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 0
Troll and flamebait for simple logic and common sense. Pathetic. But that's what you have to resort to when you can't argue logically.
Ok, so he's not an idiot because he's wrong...why is he an idiot then? Because he disagrees with you? Is he an idiot but not wrong?
What even is "a scientific view on climate"? One that is pro-AGW? Is anyone who doesn't believe in AGW "anti-science"? What about the scientists who are not pro-AGW? Are they also illiterate? Are they "anti-science"?
Your arguments are simply assertions and ad hominems. Oh, wait, your insults were orthogonal to the rest of your comments, so your arguments weren't ad hominems...right.
I consistently see the pro-AGW crowd base their arguments on ad hominems and appeals to ridicule and appeals to emotion, with simple "no evidence against!" and "consensus!" assertions thrown in. But I do not see the anti-AGW (or even the merely skeptical crowd) resort to such irrational ploys nearly as often; instead they tend to make logical arguments. Then, instead of making rebuttals, the "alarmists" say things like, "You're an idiot. The science is settled; we have consensus. The only question is whether it's too late to do anything."
Sadly, many "sheeple" are convinced by such empty rhetoric.
Oh man, it's a death spiral! The ice is going down the drain! And if it showed the antarctic ice, it'd be spinning the other way!
Seriously, that circular graph is misleading. At level 8, the area of the circle would be about 200, but at level 16, the area would be about 800. Not linear at all. Nice way to scare people, though.
I'm not an expert here, but isn't that graph misleading? Projecting onto a circular graph makes it appear less than linear, because the circumference increases faster than the radius.
Besides, how can volume be measured from space? Can a satellite see through the ice deep below the surface of the ocean?
What's really funny (or sad) is that you think 40 years of data proves anything about long-term trends.