I saw that story. Ice is melting at the North Pole, and in western Antarctica but is growing in the rest of Antaractica. Overall, the globe is warming. Why do you only cite the studies that you think support your position, when there are numerous more studies that you ignore? Do you even look at the news stories about studies in Nature, et al that support the existence of anthropogenic global warming? I read those too.
You quoted from a news story about a scientific study. There are news stories about scientific studies in major scientific journals like "Nature" which do not support your position, and you ignore them every time.
The artic is not melting? Where's your studies on that? Oh, that's right, the studies say the opposite and so you ignore them.
Artic ice grew from 2007 to 2008. Fact. A one year trend is as mathematically significant as the thrity year trend you cite. Only difference is the numbers I cite were actually observed and not based on a computer model.
"The seasonal minimum for 2008, occurring on 14 September, entered the books as the second-lowest of the satellite era, probably the second-lowest of at least a century, and just behind the standing record set in 2007."
So, 2008 wasn't quite as bad as 2007. And yes, a 30 year trend is more important than a one year trend.
The artic is expected to be ice-free in the summer with a few decades. All studies agree. The main difference between the computer simulations and the actual ice measurements is that warming is proceeding more quickly than the computer estimates.
You really only see what you want to see, don't you?
In the sense that I only want to see the truth, then yes.
Ice melts, water freezes. Has before mankind and will after mankind. Earth warms, earth cools.
Im sorry I just dont get as hysterical as you do about natural occurences.
Maybe man is responsible for the weather cycles, but it aint carbon. Thats just what you can tax, so carbon it is. For all your consensus, and computer stimulations there is zero proof that its man made carbon. The carbon output of man is not responsible. It wasnt a million years ago and it wont be a million years from now.
Until you can prove otherwise, you may as well just keep your opinion to yourself. I dont give a shit about your consensus, your baby polar bears or equivalents of me putting a tray of water in the freezer and then putting said resulting ice cubes into my glass of Gallo. Youre just not credible enough to be bothered with on this subject any longer.
You only see what you believe to be the truth. And now you have admitted it. Must be tough though; you've lost in the scientific community and in the political community as well. And all you can do is whine about it.
9 comments:
I saw that story. Ice is melting at the North Pole, and in western Antarctica but is growing in the rest of Antaractica. Overall, the globe is warming. Why do you only cite the studies that you think support your position, when there are numerous more studies that you ignore? Do you even look at the news stories about studies in Nature, et al that support the existence of anthropogenic global warming? I read those too.
Ignore?
How can we ignore something that doesnt exist? There is ZERO proof that man is the cause for the recent warming cycle. ZERO.
There are theories, there are guesses, there are predictions, there are computer models.
...but there is zero proof or you would have cited it years ago, which you havent.
What we do here at The Aurora is prove those theories, guesses, predictions and computer models wrong.
Alarmists say theres consensus, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Alarmists say theres a hockey stick, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Alarmists say 1998 was hottest year on record, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Alarmists say 2007 was hottest year on record, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Alarmists say polar bears population is dwindling, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Alarmists say the Artic is melting, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Alarmists say the Antartica is melting, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Alarmists say that carbon is the dominant and deciding element in earths atmosphere, we have proven you wrong with facts.
Sensing a pattern?
droppin sceince like galileo dropped the orange..
I do in fact got more rhymes than Jamaica has mangoes.
You quoted from a news story about a scientific study. There are news stories about scientific studies in major scientific journals like "Nature" which do not support your position, and you ignore them every time.
The artic is not melting? Where's your studies on that? Oh, that's right, the studies say the opposite and so you ignore them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_sc/sci_sea_ice
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/
http://www.9news.com/seenon9news/article.aspx?storyid=113237&catid=509
Fortunately, liberals, moderates, and the more intelligent conservatives recogize the problem and we finally have an administration that will act.
Artic ice grew from 2007 to 2008. Fact. A one year trend is as mathematically significant as the thrity year trend you cite. Only difference is the numbers I cite were actually observed and not based on a computer model.
Arctic ice grew? I had to check that out.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/has_arctic_summer_sea_ice_tipp.html
"The seasonal minimum for 2008, occurring on 14 September, entered the books as the second-lowest of the satellite era, probably the second-lowest of at least a century, and just behind the standing record set in 2007."
So, 2008 wasn't quite as bad as 2007. And yes, a 30 year trend is more important than a one year trend.
The artic is expected to be ice-free in the summer with a few decades. All studies agree. The main difference between the computer simulations and the actual ice measurements is that warming is proceeding more quickly than the computer estimates.
You really only see what you want to see, don't you?
In the sense that I only want to see the truth, then yes.
Ice melts, water freezes. Has before mankind and will after mankind. Earth warms, earth cools.
Im sorry I just dont get as hysterical as you do about natural occurences.
Maybe man is responsible for the weather cycles, but it aint carbon. Thats just what you can tax, so carbon it is. For all your consensus, and computer stimulations there is zero proof that its man made carbon. The carbon output of man is not responsible. It wasnt a million years ago and it wont be a million years from now.
Until you can prove otherwise, you may as well just keep your opinion to yourself. I dont give a shit about your consensus, your baby polar bears or equivalents of me putting a tray of water in the freezer and then putting said resulting ice cubes into my glass of Gallo. Youre just not credible enough to be bothered with on this subject any longer.
You only see what you believe to be the truth. And now you have admitted it. Must be tough though; you've lost in the scientific community and in the political community as well. And all you can do is whine about it.
Post a Comment