N2264J

Why would you guess when you can just read what I wrote?

Since 1979, an area of the arctic roughly the size of Texas,
is no longer freezing over. Not only that, but the ice sheet
keeps getting thinner.


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/391782main_sea_ice_concept.mov

DYNASTY HVY

Bingo! someone else can see the forest through the trees .
Let me get this straight , we put such regulations on industry in this country that they moved to where there are non existent regulations per se ?
And then people wonder why wages are stagnant and jobs are service oriented .
Talk about selling ones own country down the river for dollars .


Ally

Winged Wheeler

That is why they are called "watermelons"--green on the outside, red on the inside.

WW

Winged Wheeler

You say that there is less ice than in 1979. That's true. I say there is more ice than in 2007. Also true. Clearly neither of us is going to move off of our position. Internet arguments that are reduced to technical minutiae are never conclusively resolved. I guess we'll have to wait and see whose trend is important.

Having said that, I'll editorialize thus:

The released "Climategate" data showed, to me, a commitment to getting desired results above all else. This led to cherry picking data, manipulation of models, editorial bullying, alarmist media releases, and selective funding of research. I probably would neither have noticed nor cared if it were not for the alliance of politics and the media with this corrupted science. In my eyes, the goals they had would have been too economically destructive to live with. Copenhagen was a belly flop--it failed to establish binding economic restrictions on emissions, failed to enact any other regulation, and any tax scheme. Domestically, cap and trade has zero chance of coming out of the senate this session. The EPA's endangerment regulations will spend the rest of this administration's term in court.

In other words, the big global warming power grab is finished. They were stopped short of the goal. Believe what you want about the ice cap, tropical storms, global temperatures, etc. I will do the same.

WW

N2264J

Well, of course the sun revolves around the Earth. It's obvious to anyone
with eyes in his head! Everyone knows the Earth is the center of the universe because that's where man is.

Apparently, Copernicus and Galileo were leftist political hack elites who
worshiped Satan.

“Climategate” | FactCheck.org

blastoff

Typical of Climate change supporters to brush off criticism as the act of Flat-Earthers and right wing extremists. The funny thing is that sort of attack is the hallmark of left-wing extremists. It seems our higher learning institutions are failing in teaching the art of debate, and the recognition of bias.

Winged Wheeler

Wow--not your most compelling argument in that post.

I might have put this up here before, but it's worth a repeat. I believe that the temperature on Earth is determined mostly by the sun--that is a heliocentric take on things. Climate alarmists believe that human "pollution" determines the temperature--that is an anthropocentric view of things. So I always laugh when an anthropocentric warmist accuses me of ascribing to a pre-Copernican cosmology.

You can have the last word but it doesn't matter any more. The tide is now going out on climate alarmism. I'll post the sea ice extent when it hits the annual minimum next Sept and I'll bet you a carbon credit that next year's min is more than this year's min.

Cheers.

WW

Kasserine06

I am not defending the post you are referring to, but in all fairness, extremists on both sides resort to name calling. This thread started out to show that what was once believed to be settled science isn’t. Just because these scientists tampered with data does not mean climate change is a hoax. The evidence can still go either way and to now claim that global warming is false is just as bad as to claim it is true because we don’t have enough evidence.

It is no more likely that Florida will flood in 20 years than it is that many scientists have been tricking the entire world to accomplish the largest transfer in wealth in human history. All we know is that some data indicates the earth is warming, some indicates that it is not, and these particular scientists cooked their data.

In find it hard to believe that we are not affecting our environment, but to what extent, it is unknown. I have not seen enough evidence to make me jump over to one side or the other of this debate. Can we just agree that it is too early to decide?

blastoff

Wasn't that exactly the point of my post? Just pointing out the pot calling the kettle black...his very argument identified himself on the opposite extreme.

Which is why I'm keyed into Winged Wheeler's main point about Alarmism. There is much to discuss, but one side wants to end debate and act (sign treaties, intentionally cripple industries, slow the development of the Third World) because its "The End of the World." Judicious minds say "Not so fast."

KC10 FATboy

23 inches of snow in Philadelphia this week. The second highest snowfall total ... ever.