SoCalHiker wrote:As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

Buz Groshong wrote:

Aaron Johnson wrote:Hi Ejnar-

I did not move your thread, as I thought it was newsworthy. However, I can understand another staff member moving it once it wandered off into AGW land. I try not to move stuff around too much as it just confuses folks later on, including myself . Once a thread wanders way off course, I'm more likely to get rid of it, but I do that very rarely too.

Personally, I'm trying to give a wide latitude to thread subjects and where they are posted. I'm not sure about my cohorts. We're all in "summer mode," we've been vacationing, diverted and so forth so SP matters haven't been discussed as routinely as usual. I'll alert them to your query.

Gimme a break! It was bait for an argument. He was just trolling.

I report that a leading scientific journal (that actually used to be very pro-AGW) says the effect of CO2 on glacial retreat is just half of what has been assumed, and I'm trolling???

Arthur Digbee wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

Ejnar's retired now.

charles wrote:Interestingly you´r piece said that 50% was not due to human actions - so that´s 50% is - still looks sort of bad to me. I always thought the main argument about GW was that we are contributing to it.

builttospill wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

Buz Groshong wrote:

Aaron Johnson wrote:Hi Ejnar-

I did not move your thread, as I thought it was newsworthy. However, I can understand another staff member moving it once it wandered off into AGW land. I try not to move stuff around too much as it just confuses folks later on, including myself . Once a thread wanders way off course, I'm more likely to get rid of it, but I do that very rarely too.

Personally, I'm trying to give a wide latitude to thread subjects and where they are posted. I'm not sure about my cohorts. We're all in "summer mode," we've been vacationing, diverted and so forth so SP matters haven't been discussed as routinely as usual. I'll alert them to your query.

Gimme a break! It was bait for an argument. He was just trolling.

I report that a leading scientific journal (that actually used to be very pro-AGW) says the effect of CO2 on glacial retreat is just half of what has been assumed, and I'm trolling???

You play the victim terribly and unconvincingly.

You mentioned an article that agreed with your viewpoint, then went on to make unfounded claims and spurious arguments, and then failed to even ask a question (which you said you were going to do in your thread title. Moreover, you did all of this about a topic you know is controversial and over which you've gotten into countless pissing matches in the past. Your initial troll was decent, but this one is just sad.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:For one thing, it means that whatever we do, we cannot change the part that is not due to the greenhouse effect. So even if, at terrible cost, we were able to keep greenhouse gases completely constant, you would still have half the glacial retreat we see now.

butitsadryheat wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:I understand. This research is very interesting, but you have to agree that there are ample of other publications (also in reputable journals) that come to another conclusion. As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

Someone should tell that to the IPCC or those clowns who got their e-mails hacked!!!

SoCalHiker wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:The name of the forum is "News", I was reporting some important news, a fact of enormous significance for the whole world, namely that half of the glacial retreat is not due to any greenhouse effect (and therefore cannot be prevented by reducing greenhouse gases of any kind). This was from a leading scientific journal, Science which I somehow doubt many SP'ers see (I am a subscriber, and a member of the AAAS since 43 years), and there can be absolutely no doubt that Science accepted the validity of the research. Note that this was a report of research, not just 'arguments' for or against anything, an important distinction. I simply thought this must be interesting to know for everybody who has ever set foot on a glacier.

I am well aware that this is not a scientific forum (Buz's way of 'arguing' reminds me) , but I remember other scientific news having been reported here (new findings from Mars for instance). Why should there be a ban on reporting revolutionary breakthroughs in glaciological research, and why is it met with a reaction from some that reminds me of how creationists react to the word "evolution"?

I understand. This research is very interesting, but you have to agree that there are ample of other publications (also in reputable journals) that come to another conclusion. As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

My point is that although the topic is of course very interesting, it will start a discussion here that will lead nowhere.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:It is hardly my fault, that some people are allergic to anything new about AGW, that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas. That is only deplorable.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:Interestingly you´r piece said that 50% was not due to human actions - so that´s 50% is - still looks sort of bad to me. I always thought the main argument about GW was that we are contributing to it.

I thing it makes a great difference whether it is a 100%, or just 50%, (just think if your income fell by 50%!).

For one thing, it means that whatever we do, we cannot change the part that is not due to the greenhouse effect. So even if, at terrible cost, we were able to keep greenhouse gases completely constant, you would still have half the glacial retreat we see now.

Furthermore, it is the first time Nature publishes an article, where someone expressly states "It is a question of scientific honesty to admit that not all the effects of climate change are solely the result of increased greenhouse gases." That would have been unthinkable before the IPCC's less fortunate foray into Himalayan glaciology.