Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of you folks did not read the article I posted. The Arctic sea ice is on the increase. This last year, when it reached its minimum, the amount of ice was greater than 5 of the previous 10 years. This year, the amount of arctic sea ice was 50% greater than 2012. This data indicates that there is a general increase in the amount of Arctic sea ice, exactly as I stated in my post.
Remember that people like Al Gore were saying that AGW was so bad that the sea ice in the Arctic would disappear. Instead, the sea ice is now on the increase. AGW advocates are again crying wolf.
No it doesn't...All it proves is that the amount of area covered by sea ice varies from year to year, but over the long term (several decades) it is decreasing....All you are doing is cherry picking, and that fools nobody.
I guess you aren't aware yet that "Steve Goddard" is a hoax? His real name is Tony Heller. He has been pretending to be a climate scientist online for several years. Turns out he's not any type of scientist at all, just another conspiracy blogger.
I have become highly suspicious of all the global warming crap. They push it because its about to be a disaster or that its about to become known its BS and they want the laws on coal and oil passed before they lose the debate?
They want to keep their government grant gravy train rolling.
Otherwise, they're just unemployable academics and government bureaucrats.
No it doesn't...All it proves is that the amount of area covered by sea ice varies from year to year, but over the long term (several decades) it is decreasing....All you are doing is cherry picking, and that fools nobody.
Several decades is not long term when it comes to climate. How about several centuries or even more? So yes, YOU are cherry picking and YOU fool nobody.
Total BS....Since 1992, an annual average of 83 gigatons (91.5 billion tons) of West Antarctic glacier has dripped into the sea. That’s the rough equivalent of losing a Mt. Everest’s worth of ice every two years, according to a new study.
Two studies published in December suggest that Greenland’s ice sheet is melting far faster than we realize.
Thanks to several big scientific breakthroughs, 2014 will likely go down as the year that melting polar ice caps graduated from being a geographic abstraction to a symbol of the irreversible ways we’ve warped the planet. 2014 was the year of the melting ice sheet – Quartz
LMAO! Yup, your position is made with solid data.. Typical liberal "scientists". Don't like the data change it or throw it out.. Pathetic. This article is just one of many over the years. Yup, you hold a lot of credibility here
All a link to Forbes tells us is that a right-winger thinks global warming is a hoax because the scientific findings contradict Republican dogma. But we already know right-wingers think that. When it comes to scientific merit, an op-ed in a right-wing business magazine has no more merit than a post from a denialist here.
All a link to Forbes tells us is that's a right-winger thinks global warming is a hoax because the scientific findings contradict Republican dogma. But we already know right-wingers think that. When it comes to scientific merit, an op-ed in a right-wing business magazine has no more merit than a post from a denialist here.
Read the article they faked and dropped data for Christs sake. He should have lost his position at Happy Valley.
LMAO! Yup, your position is made with solid data.. Typical liberal "scientists". Don't like the data change it or throw it out.. Pathetic. This article is just one of many over the years. Yup, you hold a lot of credibility here
It's ironic that James Taylor was accusing scientists of fraud and deception when his political opinion piece used fraud and deception by cherry-picking sentences out of context from emails to entirely misrepresent what a couple of scientists were actually saying in their emails.
By the way, they weren't a 'new batch of emails' - they were from the same illegal hacking incident in 2009.
These are the reports from the investigations that debunked the supposed 'climategate scandal' as conspiracy nonsense.
"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data".
"The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
"The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data".
"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU."
"In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty--for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"--we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
