They don’t demonstrate they didn’t and as a result adresses none of Heller’s arguments. It let us, the public, lacking. We need to tell them we need them to adress his points.
-
-
This doesn't address any of the points (Scott, me, Heller) made on why this is actually meaningless. I'll let you reread them. They're all good points IMO.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
well, "it's complicated" once again. Antarctica is a problem child compared with the Arctic. And yes, adjustments are involved too. This talks about the supposed gain of ice in Antarctica. I will find a newer article. This one is 2015.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422&utm_term=.4c495ab12e8e …
-
If I may Jeff I think that's too much door opening and not enough focus. I firmly believe only doing one point thoroughly and see what we learn in the process is the only way to make progress, hence my call to start /w checking if raw datas say what Heller say they do. /1
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I just read that the glaciers are expanding now in Iceland. Funny that we only are shown retreating glaciers and not glaciers that are expanding. Why is that?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The counter argument has no factual basis. The trend is that the volume of glacial ice is shrinking worldwide. https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.