Can someone explain this Nasa report to me? http://www.nasa

>>7840707
For it to disprove anything there would have to be valid assertions in the first place.

>>7840712
But it already disproved the report for IPCC about climate change

It actually proves climate change. It means the climate is changing for the better :^)

>>7840707
man made climate change is a myth

scientists gotta eat after all

>>7840720
>IPCC about climate change
A politically fueled publication with little valide science behind it.

Guys guys lets keep /pol/ behind and lets argue scientifically.

>>7840728
> climate change deniers are nazis
back to /r/eddit with your flat earth conspiracies redditard

>>7840732
I didn't say that, what I said is that there are a lot of research regarding climate change and many of them are true, but this particular report is unexplained and I want an explanation for it.
But yea a single report is not sufficient to dismiss the entire climate change thing.

>>7840728
I'm actually waiting on supercomputer time I bought right now to run my model (which used less semi-empircal hackery and bullshit).

Until I get my results I shitpost.

>>7840739
> a single report is not sufficient to dismiss the entire climate change thing.
Climate change is a very wide subject. Global warming is a meme with zero respectable evidence. You need to convince people that global warming is happening and will effect us negatively to start discussing it. Otherwise you will be naturally shot down by everyone.

Last time i read one of these nasa reports the gist was that the amount of melt was increasing due to higher sea temperatures but there was a greater snowfall inland.

That is logical if you think about it - and proves climate change - it is seriously worrying.

>>7840739
>But yea a single report is not sufficient to dismiss the entire climate change thing.
That's actually how science works though and why so many have problems taking the champions of climate change at what they say. There's a history of altering and suppressing evidence that disagrees with what they say in even the slightest way. This is not good science nor is it something we should base policy on until we have full disclosure.

>>7840726
The IPCC report is merely an aggregate of peer-reviewed scientific publications - dumbed down for the average shithead to read.

>>7840760
>That's actually how science works though
Only if you are a retard that doesn't know how science works. You cannot weight a single study against the rest of observation and call them equal. At best, the study would have to be accounted for, but the general big picture theory will more than likely still be accurate. Furthermore, the report concludes that gains in East Antarctica have been under calculated for a long time period, not just recently, and that these gains have been reducing dramatically in the past several decades. As a result, the report actually supports climate change in that it indicates recent dramatic shifts in accumulation for a good chunk of the continent.

>>7840829
No, you're a retard who doesn't know how science works.

A study is different from interpretations of data. A study has the power to falsify.

>>7840829
Of course you can. If I throw a rock and it doesn't fall towards the earth then surely the theory of gravity is wrong and must be revised.

If the claim that the polar ice is melting thus causing a rise in sea level is proven wrong, then therefore global warming needs revision.

>>7840785
>The IPCC report is merely a *selected* aggregate of peer-reviewed scientific publications - dumbed down for the average shithead to read.
ftfy

>>7840843
If you throw a rock it could fail to fall to the ground for a number of different reasons that are much more likely than any fault in the theory of gravity.
With how much evidence there already is supporting the scientific consensus, you'd need a lot of absolute and incontrovertible data to bring it into question. The thing is that even the studies that can be taken to "disprove" global warming can just as reasonably be interpreted to further support it.

>>7840943
>With how much evidence there already is supporting the scientific consensus,
There isn't as much direct evidence as you seem to believe. Most of it is conjecture.
>you'd need a lot of absolute and incontrovertible data to bring it into question.
No, we need to depoliticize it and get all of the loonies out of the field.
>The thing is that even the studies that can be taken to "disprove" global warming can just as reasonably be interpreted to further support it.
Which is a sign of how bullshit and contrived the entire climate change arena is.

What kills me is how the same people who will raise all kinds of hell to deny something like psychology is a science will buy in so fully to climatology when in all actuality their analysis methods are identical.