“Seeing things that don't exist is a particular quality of the left” (Tim Blair).

Steele, I just posted about Michael Mann, so this would appear to be an attempt at misdirection.

Be that as it may, the only evidence posted here which is in any sense rigorous and quantitative shows that ice mass in Greenland is not changing significantly. I'm not sure why you insist on making things up.

You ideological warriors really annoy me. You can't discuss an issue rationally. I started off asking for evidence of increased melt. That hasn't been available, apart from a couple of docos that I'm not going to give any weight to.

But I'm happy to accept that there could be some increased ice melt. (You ask why I won't say it is definite and the answer is it is so miniscule in all the sources you have quoted, and there is no eidence of an acceleration). The issue then arises as to why this might be happening, and what it might mean.

On that front, temperature in the area hasn't gone up, so we should be able to rule out global warming, unless someone has got an hypothesis that implicates it - haven't seen that one yet.

And then there is the issue as to whether increased melt, assuming someone can show it, leads to decreased mass, and again, there is no evidence of significant decreased mass.

Dear GrahamY,

No, referencing Mann in a debate about Greenland ice melt is a misdirection. I brought the discussion back to the topic at hand; Is there Greenland ice melt, and is it due to global warming?

Then this from you;

“You ideological warriors really annoy me. You can't discuss an issue rationally. I started off asking for evidence of increased melt. That hasn't been available, apart from a couple of docos that I'm not going to give any weight to.”

I did not give you a link to a documentary, rather one to an extremely robust set of data showing an increase in the area of Greenland melt.

It is now coming down to whether you can accept from that data that there is melting or whether you are sticking to 'could be'. I quite legitimately asked what would it take for you to accept that there is an increase in the area of melt and your response “You ideological warriors really annoy me. You can't discuss an issue rationally.” would seem to be projection rather than being prepared to 'discuss an issue rationally'.

Graham,

In an earlier post, you recommended

https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget

This research document notes that: “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” I mentioned this to you earlier, but you chose not to comment on it, as that simple figure caused all of your position statements to be false.

Regarding Mann, if capable, read this article. Manns position fully validated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

A summary at the end of this article states:

“New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions. Ljungqvist's 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction generally agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, though it used different methods and covered a different area.[212] Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.[213] as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[214]”

Very solid validation of the original paper by Mann on the Hockey Stick graph.

The McIntyre and McKitrick work was generally deemed to be of no value for a variety of technical and other reasons.

Why do denialists resort to false facts? Graham, you are expert at ignoring any truth that attacks your house of straw.

Guys, it is an age old fact that if there is not consensus about a particular submission or finding, then it is in doubt. If it is in doubt, neither the fore or against camp are right. I have said many times, if a scientific argument is found or published, it is always scrutinised and undergoes strict peer reviews. If anyone of these experts disagree with the original paper, it is immediately put into doubt or question. So any related debate arguing for or against is moot. I am again reminded of the fact that in such situations we have to consider who stands to gain from their particular stance. I can see how people like Gore are making money from this topic. I would like to believe that those opposing may be telling the truth because if anyone can tell me where they are making money from playing down such things as global warming and so on, I would very much like to know. Just a thought.

Poor Tony 153 must be the only person in the world who doesn't know that Mann's hockey stick was totally discredited. Talk about making a total fool of yourself, Tony! And you had the cheek tell me to shut up!