The Global Warming "Scam" quickly claiming another victim: Coral Reefs

reply to post by mc_squared

Here is a recent relevent thread about SE Asia..........scary stuff.

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.abovetopsecret.com...

what a long drawn out attack, to defend i've no choice but to make an equaly long drawn out defense.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

I have no problem with informed opinions.

I do have a problem with every one of these discussions being hijacked by someone who brings nothing but their personal uninformed conjecture to the table, but arrogantly trumpets it around like it's some obvious fact or something.

the only hijacking done is by anyone who claims possesion as you and the op do,
i told you it was my opinion, if you took that to mean i thought it was fact than you are a moron,

you know i could easily have tried to be as much of a jerk as you two have been but i've attempted to remain civil and diplomatic, you on the other hand are posting and acting like a child including an insult with your every retort, i see this to be a far bigger impedence to the discussion on this discussion site then i would care about someone posting their opinion!

This is exactly what you just did by trying to enlighten the rest of us on how much all the scientists behind global warming apparently just want a carbon tax, and how it's some hidden fact that warming is happening throughout the solar system.

theres nothing hidden about it and i implied nothing of the sort, nor did i say ALL scientist feel that way as you have stated, i was only refering to the scientists who have been relied on as sources thus far in this thread, hardly ALL of them!

The first statement is nothing but pointless speculative nonsense on your part,

it isn't pointless, there is alot of point to theorizing on a global warming cause, or perhaps you've no idea what science is!?
there is nothing wrong with speculating, after all EVERY post in this thread is doing the same so are the sources used so get over that!
and it isnt nonsense anymore then what you posters say is, after all it's based on the reasonings of other scientists,

- and doesn't even make a lick of sense considering the science behind global warming is over a hundred years old.

ya no shizzle they've been trying to convince americans of global warming AND global cooling for over a century, whats your point?!

Tell me - what's Svante Arrhenius or GS Callendar's plot in this big conspiracy? They were both instrumental in bringing global warming to the attention of mainstream science.

did i say i disagreed with them??! NO i didnt! so back the hell up!!!

from your source "Arrhenius developed a theory... " "Guy Stewart Callendar....main contribution to knowledge was propounding the theory... " thats all any of it is A THEORY!!! so do you agree it too is only "pointless speculative nonsense and doesn't even make a lick of sense" i didnt think so, so stop being biased!

So how much of a cut is Al Gore gonna give them considering they've both been dead for over 50 years?

less of an idiotic question would be how much of a cut is all gore getting paid himself?!

As for the second statement...let's see, where do I even start...

You think 6 out of 180-something planetary bodies showing some vague traces of warming...

wrong! the source clearly states that only ONE planetary body is cooling and 6 have been found to be warming, it makes no claim or clarification of the other 173 planetary bodies, the other 173 are unknowns and may POSSIBLY be warming also, all we have is 6 OUT OF 7, like i said before 6 vs 1, 6 wins!

...is good enough to conclude the entire solar system is the main culprit. OK fair enough, but considering those 6 warmings seem to have perfectly mundane explanations already,

as i stated before those "mundane explanations" are very poor and are FAR from satisfactory,

and there's no observed phenomenon known that can explain why they would all warm up together anyway - then please provide one. Because I would honestly love to hear how a network of hypothetical icy comets - orbiting a light year away from the Sun - are somehow causing coral reefs to bleach and walruses to change their travel plans on Earth.

i cannot find the original article i read this in but that was where they refered to this cloud as an oort cloud, not the same as the one wiki describes, it is not one which orbits our sun, it is an interstellar cloud our solar system is entering into, i can atleast find articles about that, but it seems they are not refering to it as also being a type of oort cloud anymore, terminology is semantics though.

deepsoftime.com... -
"Solar System Entering Interstellar Cloud?
When NASA’s IBEX satellite began sending back data about energetic interstellar atoms, a notable structure of was noticed at the edge of our solar system, which astronomers dubbed “the Ribbon.” Now, some scientists think that this “ribbon” is evidence that the sun is entering into a superheated cloud of interstellar dust. If correct, they predict our solar system will slide into this interstellar cloud over the course of the next century. ScienceDaily reports: "

and adsabs.harvard.edu... -

"Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600.
.....Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years. "

hows that for "no observed phenomenon known that can explain why they would all warm up together" does that meet your criteria?!

But here's the thing: if you want your "opinion" on this to be respected - then add a little more to the discussion next time than "they say", or "ask nasa". Give some details, provide a link - back up your words with something that shows you did your homework instead of just sponging up another rumour on the internet and regurgitating it out for the rest of us. If you do this maybe you'll find other people won't get so short with you.

theres no excuse for getting "short" with someone as you put it, or as i see it insulting rude and childish. i can post my opinion in whatever manner i wish and it is completly unreasonable and infantile for you to resort to the rude tactics you did. unless you enjoy it as i suspect, that would be a reason and the only one that makes sense.

Because this is my problem.

It has nothing to do with people disagreeing with what I have to say. It has to do with the fact the topic of Global Warming is absolutely LITTERED with all these little myths and deliberate lies put out by corporate hacks trying to serve their agenda - and instead of stopping them in their tracks and calling them out for what they are, these lies are constantly being propagated around the internet like they're some obvious fact. This happens because a bunch of so-called conspiracy theorists of all people spread them around like wildfire, instead of ever bothering to think critically about them first or question their sources.

i have not posted an incling of support for anything that big oil supports, not their agenda or propaganda so dont lump my posts into that category it makes no sense.
your link "Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil" is a good one and not one that i deny, it isnt a surprise at all either, of course big oil would do that, now do me a favor and look up big oils overwhelming support for a carbon tax and explain that!! besides like i said so many posts ago i AM AGAINST OIL.

Oil industry supports carbon tax
www.calgaryherald.com...

Exxon chief backs carbon tax
www.guardian.co.uk...

The climategate thing is just another perfect example of this. You realize there have now been THREE seperate official investigations that ALL cleared the scientists of any wrong doing? And if you think this is just some convenient white wash then how about you try this - use your own critical thinking skills.

OK, using my own critical thinking skills i can conclude that it wouldn't be wise to trust ONE MANS WORD on those "three seperate investigations" - "A six-month inquiry led by Sir Muir Russell concluded that there was no evidence that the scientists involved subverted the peer review process to censor criticisms"
you can trust Sir Muir Russell all you want though.

You yourself have admitted as much in this thread that the Earth is definitely warming, be it part of a bigger solar cycle or whatever. All the biological evidence presented here shows that the Earth is warming, and nobody seems to be arguing that part. All of our temperature records, both ground based and satellite have shown a definitive upward trend for the last 40 or so years. Agreed?

i do acknowledge a rarely known fact that earths last decade has been the coolest in a long time

"What happened to global warming"
news.bbc.co.uk...
"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."

regardless of the last decade it does seem to be true that the longer extrapolated term of centurys does show an incline.

So what is this "decline" then that the scientists we're supposedly hiding?? Is it ALL a lie - or is it maybe that the rumors you read about climategate were the real propaganda - because it was in fact nothing more than out-of-context soundbites blown out of proportion by right wing media sources trying to do all their buddies in the oil industry some solid PR favors?

well then apparently you must think BBC linked above is in on the right wing conspiracy??

"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus
I'm not saying you have to agree with that. But just do some research and investigate the WHOLE story and then decide for yourself. Because if all you're doing is automatically sucking up every "fact" you read on the internet...

and this is in regard to climate gate alone? theres more to take into account then only that.

...when it supports your pre-dispositions - you leave yourself ripe for the picking for the very people you are fighting against.

who said i was fighting anyone, i'm on the defensive here being attacked by your insulting offensive, you are the one making this a fight instead of a discussion.

So when I said I don't know why I still post this stuff please note I also immediately answered my own question. I said because:

I expect better out of fellow conspiracy theorists. I expect them to actually use their brains and think for themselves and see through the bullsh--, instead of just getting sucked right into it like all the other sheep they think they're above.

ya you said that, and as i already pointed out before, you should notice that what you said is again nothing more then insults packed into a close ended statement with an aim of convincing people to agree with you or else be that insult.

the insulting attacking nature of your posts is not a mature way to communicate and is far less effective at....communication,

you are not on this site to tell people stuff, you are not on this site to yell at people stuff, you are not on this site to convince someone this or that, you are not on this site to polarize the audience into being a supporter or a neglecter, you are ONLY on this site to discuss, so lets do it maturely or else go to a different site because discussions happen here and seeking anything else will leave you as dissapointed as you stated you were a couple posts back..

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


OK - much better, now we have an actual discussion brewing

So in light of that I apologize for any previous rudeness, but please understand I've been on here for a long time now trying to initiate an informed discussion on Global Warming - and 90% of the feedback is always just the same old ignorant pile of one line posts about "taxing the air breathe", or various myths that people pick up from propaganda-laced blogs and think it makes them sudden climate experts now.

Anyway since we've finally got something to sink our teeth into...

the other 173 are unknowns and may POSSIBLY be warming also, all we have is 6 OUT OF 7, like i said before 6 vs 1, 6 wins!

The other 173 are not unknowns - they just haven't shown any noticeable changes, cooling or warming, to warrant anyone writing a paper about them. If you can determine that Pluto is heating up then you can just as easily point an infrared telescope anywhere else to see if the same thing is happening there too. This is not a matter of warming vs cooling - it's a matter of warming vs cooling vs nothing happening. And if all the planets and moons in the solar system really were noticeably warming up (the way the Earth is) then you can bet astronomers would be all over it. So 6 vs 1 is irrelevant, 6 out of 180 is what counts. Besides that previous link is just one source (although a very good one), it doesn't mean it's the only information we have on heating vs cooling anyway - here's a couple more I just googled up on the fly:

An unexpected cooling effect in Saturn’s upper atmosphere
Moon geologically active, cooling and shrinking

My point though is this claim that "ALL the planets are warming" is a bastardized version of the truth deliberately engineered by a denial industry that seeks to create unwarranted doubt amongst the general public. It doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story - but yet so many people eat it up anyway without any scrutiny, and then tell their friends it's some sort of "proof" that global warming is a hoax. It's not even close.

hows that for "no observed phenomenon known that can explain why they would all warm up together" does that meet your criteria?!

Yes those links are interesting, thank you for providing them. But there's still a lot of serious hang-ups before you sign off on it being some root culprit of Earthly-warming. First off is again the point that 170 or so of our neighbours appear to be completely unaffected. Second is the observation that we are only potentially "entering" this cloud, not in it. In fact if you look through the actual article in the 2nd link, (here) you can see on page 597 they estimate the lower limit on the distance of this cloud to be 0.03 parsecs away - that's 1 000 000 000 000 km. Third is simply the fact that, even if we were in it, the solar system has something called the heliosphere that tends to mediate the problem. Your first link even points out:

But before you panic, the scientists go on to report that what gets called a “cloud” in space is not exactly the same as here on Earth. An interstellar dust cloud of this type is in fact still less dense than the best vacuum possible on Earth. So the danger isn’t that great. What’s the worst that could happen?

“Once in, the heliosphere will reform and may shrink a little, the level of cosmic radiation entering the magnetosphere may rise a bit, but nothing more. “Perhaps future generations will have to learn how to better harden their space hardware against stronger radiation,” suggests Grzedzielski.

So it's something to keep an eye on - but an interstellar dust cloud that we're not even due to enter for another 100 years is not exactly going to cut the mustard on why the Earth's been unequivocally warming for the last 100.

And make no mistake - it has been warming.

i do acknowledge a rarely known fact that earths last decade has been the coolest in a long time

This is "rarely known" because it's utterly, completely false.

The last decade was the warmest on record. It beat the 90's which was the warmest on record before that, the 90's beat the 80's which was the warmest before that... There are multiple independent sources which all confirm this:

NASA: NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years
British Met and WMO: BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'
NOAA:
Report: Decade warmest on record, indicators gloomy
Global Warming "Undeniable," U.S. Government Report Says

And although it is true that 1998 was the warmest year on record (although some have it as 2005) - this is another PERFECT example of the way the denial industry manipulates facts to mislead people. First off 1998 is still a fairly recent year, and it's record setting temps were the result of an unusually strong El Nino piggy-backing on top of AGW. Second, cherry-picking one record year completely undermines the overall trend - which still points to the same obvious conclusion. Here's a great video on these well documented cherry-picking techniques if you're interested:



Last but not least - it looks like this denier myth is about to get put to bed anyway, since 2010 is well on track to become your new champion:
Hottest Year on Record So Far in 2010

So again - what's there to hide? Even if you somehow think all this data is some sort of massive collusion amongst scientists, you still have all the coral reefs and walruses backing their story up too.

The facts speak for themselves: Climategate was nothing but propaganda - but all the armchair expert conspiracy theorists were so bloodthirsty to prove how much smarter they are than mainstream science they never bothered to consider this little detail. Now they're too proud or too embarrassed to admit it.


Finally,

now do me a favor and look up big oils overwhelming support for a carbon tax and explain that!

It seems I have to repeat this for the 5 millionth time: the science of global warming is NOT the same thing as the politics. Global warming can still be 100% real and completely exploited by TPTB. Every single time I start one of these discussions about the physical reality of global warming someone instantly comes along and tells me all about what a sucker I am for supporting taxes and global government and blah blah blah.

I seriously wish I had a dollar for every automaton out there who's called me brainwashed by using this same exact brainwashed line over and over again.

Have you ever considered that maybe there's more to global warming than just carbon taxes? Ecological preservation, cleaner air, water, healthier food, rewarding jobs, ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, an economy that's driven by sustainability and efficiency rather than GREED - all these things are a direct result of proper action against AGW.

But to get people to support that without taxes you have to get them to care on their own. And I mean REALLY CARE, like enough to make changes in their lives that collectively implement these things, not just feel like they're contributing because they go on the internet and talk about how much they "support the environment" or whatever. So if you want them to care - you need them to understand the problem is real and urgent AND being exploited.

Now look at all the people telling you it's actually no big deal. They are simultaneously hedging their bets by denying it AND supporting a carbon tax. Do you think taking their side on either one of these things against the other is gonna accomplish anything? You think you're fighting the system but you're actually just enabling it, because you're telling everyone to stay fast asleep when you've been falsely led to believe you're waking them up.

So all I'm saying is - maybe it's time to re-think how "obvious" the whole global warming scam is. Sorry if my method is harsh but I don't know how else to wake people up who are soooo convinced they've already got it all figured out.

reply to post by serpentine


thanks for the link - it's good to have this stuff personally confirmed by other ATS members.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

"They now estimate there are one million marine species, excluding up to one billion microbes.

The project identified 1,200 new species and has yet to name more than 5,000."

So the coral reef is dying. So what....its a living thing, all living things die. If its dying in one place, its also thriving and growing in another place. That is called "change" and it is a constant.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Climate Progress just posted an update on this:

When J.E.N. Veron speaks, we all should listen. Veron is the former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He is principal author of 8 monographs and more than 70 scientific articles on the taxonomy, systematics, biogeography, and the fossil record of corals. His books include the three-volume Corals of the World and A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End (2008). His research has taken him to all the major coral reef regions of the world during 66 expeditions.

Reefs are the ocean’s canaries and we must hear their call. This call is not just for themselves, for the other great ecosystems of the ocean stand behind reefs like a row of dominoes. If coral reefs fail, the rest will follow in rapid succession, and the Sixth Mass Extinction will be upon us — and will be of our making.

This guy is like the Jacques Cousteau of coral reefs. Looks like he's completely in on the "scam" too I guess:

You may well feel that dire predictions about anything almost always turn out to be exaggerations. You may think there may be something in it to worry about, but it won’t be as bad as doomsayers like me are predicting. This view is understandable given that only a few decades ago I, myself, would have thought it ridiculous to imagine that reefs might have a limited lifespan on Earth as a consequence of human actions. It would have seemed preposterous that, for example, the Great Barrier Reef — the biggest structure ever made by life on Earth — could be mortally threatened by any present or foreseeable environmental change. Yet here I am today, humbled to have spent the most productive scientific years of my life around the rich wonders of the underwater world, and utterly convinced that they will not be there for our children’s children to enjoy unless we drastically change our priorities and the way we live. A decade ago, my increasing concern for the plight of reefs in the face of global temperature changes led me to start researching the effects of climate change on reefs, drawing on my experience in reef science, evolution, biodiversity, genetics, and conservation, as well as my profound interests in geology, palaeontology, and oceanography, not to mention the challenging task of understanding the climate science, geochemical processes, and ocean chemistry.

the science is clear: Unless we change the way we live, the Earth’s coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children’s lifetimes.

Meanwhile it is well known that the majority of heat trapped due to global warming goes into the oceans first.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5528f0717e37.gif[/atsimg]

This can have all sorts of wacky consequences like oh...I dunno...messing with thermohaline circulation and slowing or even shutting down the Gulf Stream for example. So while the tin-foil crowd screams this means the beginning of an ice age, it is in fact just more evidence of global warming leading to regional climate disruption. People really need to educate themselves properly on these complex issues instead of always just looking for the most superficial easy answers.

Many of the consequences of our current actions cannot yet be seen, and yet the Earth is already committed to their path. This delayed reaction is due to the inertia of the oceans, both thermal and chemical. The greenhouse gases we produce today will take a number of decades (and sometimes more) to unleash their full fury, but their effects are unavoidable and unstoppable. We cannot afford to wait until the predictions of science can be totally verified, because by that time it will be too late. How many of us wish to explain to our children and children’s children that the predictions were there but we wanted confirmation?

Your best bet however is to just listen to nature, which has no political agenda or carbon credit scheme. If you're going to ask the coral though, probably best to do it sooner than later - it could be your last chance for millions of years:

A particularly galling aspect of the past four mass extinction events (very little is known about the first) is that, following them, reefs disappeared — not just for a few tens of thousands of years, but for millions of years — long after adverse climatic conditions may have returned to benign levels.

oh come on, there are plenty of coral bleaching related threads on here, just search a bit.

i find it amusing that, like the polar ice cap, it's the same adage every year interrupted only by episodes of

Damaged Barrier Reef coral makes 'spectacular' recovery'

a year ago i posted...

ATS link

déjà vu? how come?!


sure, there's sunscreen, which is having the same effect, but noone will even bother to eliminate that (proven) hazard, because let's face it, it's all moot, because:



AGW is a lesson in sociology, nature is at best secondary.

reply to post by Long Lance


Oh come on, yourself.

Since we're handing out free research advice - you might want to try actually reading your own link, instead of just posting the headline:

It features gems such as:

A "lucky combination" of rare circumstances has meant the reef has been able to make a recovery.

The findings are important as it is extremely rare to see reports of reefs that bounce back from mass coral bleaching or other human impacts in less than a decade or two, the scientists said.

Just like it is extremely rare to ever see a climate skeptic who will actually post the FULL context in their arguments, rather than some cherry-picked soundbite followed by the quiet hope that no one will actually bother reading the fine print.

And if sunscreen is contributing to the overall problem, then by all means something should be done about it. I'll remember not to wear any next time I'm near a coral reef. But none of this information does anything to take global warming off the hook. In fact it only makes the problem even worse. Again YOUR OWN article points out:

Coral bleaching occurs in higher sea temperatures when the coral lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive.

So yeah, maybe coral can recover quickly in "extremely rare" circumstances. Normally it takes them timescales of decades - and that's based on the presumption that conditions return to normal. But conditions are not returning to normal, they are only getting worse and worse. Thus bleachings are getting more and more frequent. So even the fact that there are apparently plenty of related ATS threads on this tells you something in itself.

déjà vu? how come?!

Again, try actually reading the articles you post down to the last sentence, and you might be able to answer your own questions a little less rhetorically next time:

Climate change poses the biggest threat to reefs however, as emissions of carbon dioxide make seawater increasingly acidic.

Last year a study showed that one-fifth of the world's coral reefs have died or been destroyed and the remainder are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network says many surviving reefs could be lost over the coming decades as CO2 emissions continue to increase.

But of course AGW-denial is a lesson in selective, willful ignorance designed to make you feel cooler than a cucumber. Facts are at best nothing but a total buzzkill.

reply to post by mc_squared


yes, the obligatory disclaimer that 'AGW will become deadly in the future' - forget to include it and you don't get published.


the idea is that these more or less annual recoveries are necessary for the doom&gloom bits, because without them, the whole thing would be dead by now. likewise, (slightly OT) arctic ice loss is more often than not misreported,

Navy PIPS Shows Large Increase In Thick Ice Since 2008

one could (and should) talk a very long time about the causality of these events, when they're actually confirmed as true. For now, all i see is the selective use of snapshots designed to create an emotional bond to certain hypothesized long term developments.

1970s – New Ice Age gonna kill us off
1980s – Acid rain gonna kill us off
1990s – Hole in the Ozone layer gonna kill us off
2000s+ - Global warming gonna kill us off


really?

reply to post by Long Lance


Yes, and now we have the obligatory cop out and immediate subject change once you get caught misrepresenting your own sources.

Can you guys all do me a favour - can you at least just pick ONE story and stick with it? Because one minute you're grasping at this incredibly weak excuse that scientists are all forced to say AGW = doom in their papers or they don't get published, and the next minute one of you is trying to tell me all about how less than half of all published papers actually do that, so therefore there is no consensus:

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory


So which one is it?

Because the only consistent thing that ever comes out of a climate deniers' argument is bull****. Since this has apparently become a sociological discussion now - here's my analysis, developed from years of observing the same old schtick:

The Climate "Skeptic" M.O. by mc_squared.

Step 1: Read some crap on a blog.

Step 2: Immediately swallow it whole, without any fact-checking or balance, because it goes against mainstream views and therefore makes you look cool and feel smart, so nothing else matters really.

Step 3: Rush over to your favorite internet message board and regurgitate it with abandon, calling out anyone who opposes the idea as brainwashed by "mainstream propaganda".

Step 4: When said idea is challenged by actual facts, logic, full context, or revelations of misunderstanding and flat out contradiction in your own argument - simply label the people pointing out this inconsistency as brainwashed, dogmatic, and clearly threatened by your radical opposing viewpoints.

Claim that they are blinded by their "emotional bond" (to facts, logic and full context apparently?) and then rationalize to yourself that the employment of these dirty tricks is just a clear cut sign they are on their heels, because obviously they just can't handle teh truths.

Meanwhile protect your own wounded paradigm by making up some lame-o excuse for your inconsistencies. Preferably center it around a massive conspiracy involving mainstream peer pressure and research funding. That way you can sweep your own contradictions under the rug AND serendipitously reinforce those previous fantasies about being a true hero of scientific integrity! ...Instead of you know - just some shmo who got conned by a blog.

Step 5: Promptly change the subject and repeat Step 1 before reality can sink in.

Q.E.D.


...
Because here we are - and now you're telling me all about Arctic Sea Ice using Steven Goddard as your source.

For now, all i see is the selective use of snapshots designed to create an emotional bond to certain hypothesized long term developments.

No, apparently all you see is the selective use of snapshots cherry-picked and deliberately designed to mislead people away from the actual long term development. Literally. Because that's exactly what you just linked me to.

Meanwhile here's what long term development of Arctic Ice Volume actually looks like.

Those models are constantly checked and verified not just by PIPS, but by satellite data as well.

So you can try to denounce these boring numerical graphs as some sort of emotional bias all you want - but the fact that you are using Steven Goddard's snapshots as your source tells me all I need to know about your (lack of) experience in the climate debate, no matter how many years you've spent NOT paying attention.

Because Goddard is a notorious denial-blog-spinmeister who sits around and waits for any data he can get that detracts from the bigger picture. His cherry-picking techniques are legendary, and constant fodder for the "warmists" to make an example out of. In fact it's gotten so bad recently that even his number one enabler Anthony Watts had to start doing it lol.

So color me unimpressed by his latest charade. Any Arctic Ice data is far more relevant in March and especially September than it is in December. And while it is true that some "middle of the"-pack ice has recovered a bit over the last couple of years during the freezing season, it doesn't change the fact that OVERALL volume is still decreasing (and accelerating at that).

Meanwhile even this latest PIPS data can be looked at through the context of overall warming, as NSIDC just reported that re-growth in ice extent has been particularly slow thus far. So while warmer temperatures keep eating away and pushing at the edges of the Arctic, it's hardly all that counter-intuitive to imagine this would simultaneously cause a bit of rebound and "bunching up" in it's deepest, coldest parts during refreeze. Something not unlike Newton's Third Law if you will.

But of course who's got time for things like physics and logic and critical thinking, when you can just get all of your information spoonfed to you from some blog...

Of course some of the ‘deniers’ as you call us read blogs written by some people that have an agenda or will never back down in an argument no matter what evidence is laid before them The same can be said, of course for the pro-AGW collective. It doesn’t help your argument that data collected in proAGW studies has been proven to be selective, subjective and fraudulent. If you don’t want to accept this fact then you are just as much of a bigot as Goddard. If you do accept this fact then I commend you and we should focus on where the discussion should really be going instead of sniping about where people get information from.

reply to post by mc_squared


Before you get on your high horse, please remember that we can not predict climate change with any certainty as we do not have enough understanding to do so.

That means we, as humans, barely know what is going on. It is also why predictions range and vary, even from the same source.

To think otherwise is just as arrogant as thinking that humans do not affect the environment.