One thing you wont see at Real Climate, a balanced discussion of the issue. I wonder what planet they are talking about, it sure isn’t this one

I don’t know what you’re on about. I’m the one that rejected your empiricism use, and the one whose comment #15 you just repeated but didn’t read in your headlong, ululating rush to paint me with the brush you had already dipped and had ready to go.

Best,

D

I can see now why you’re an AGW alarmist: you’re given to extrapolating trends and coming to conclusions driven by personal preferences. Here’s a fact, Dano, from the science side of things: the “A” in AGW is not a unique explanation for the climate trends of Earth. There is no cliamte theory good enough to provide a unique explanation.

Looking at a map of the Mackenzie Delta, one thing becomes immediately clear – the lithosphere it sits on is submergent. Note how the main channel is an estuary – highly unusual for a delta of this form. There is a possible explanation for this. Consider what is happening tectonically. There is a subduction zone along the Alaskan shore. Beyond the high mountains, there is undoubtedly extension going on in the contiental crust. Just how far does it go? Not only that, but the Arctic between single digit E longitudes and westward to the date line is formed by sea floor spreading (albeit, decreasing toward the pole where it then switches over to the compressive regime eventually culminating in the Urals). So, the entire North American Arctic shore is a passive margin and innately subsiding. Add to that the rise in sea level which happened (but appears to be now leveling off) since ~ 10K YBP. Of course the Mackenzie Delta is eroding. Although at some point is will start to build back up again. No more estuary, no more winter ice road out onto the sea?

Seriously, you are confusing empiricism with gathering empirical evidence using the scientific method.

Ah, the old scientific method! Not to change the subject too much, but here’s a linky from wiki about “the scientific method”:

“…Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established… ”

Is “refusing to be intimidated into releasing code” in line with the scientific method?

Empiricism is mere inductivism in another guise. It provides no prospect for theory-based conclusions.

Ah. So you don’t trust science. I take it you don’t do medicine, then.

Seriously, you are confusing empiricism with gathering empirical evidence using the scientific method. Certainly if a theory-based conclusion is valid, then you can gather data to test that theory. That’s the deal with science – being able to test the theory. Otherwise, it’s not science.

Best,

D