|
Post by rsmith7 on Dec 21, 2010 20:28:35 GMT 1
Today is the solstice, and yet the North polar ice cap has been shrinking for the last few days, and is now smaller than any recent year. Marchesarosa is not the only one who knows how to pick cherries. www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmNonsense - I trust the sea ice extent figures as much as I trust "suicide" Jones' hadcrud figures. In over forty years of recording sea temperatures, I have NEVER seen it so low as it is now. 7.1C, today, Pentland Firth. 40 Year average for 21st December - 8.7C
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 21, 2010 22:07:46 GMT 1
Hearsay, not backed-up by proper evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Dec 22, 2010 17:09:32 GMT 1
I tend to believe my own eyes and recordings. You seem happy to believe a shower of discreditede charlatans. Marvellous.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 22, 2010 17:14:19 GMT 1
I tend to believe my own eyes and recordings. You seem happy to believe a shower of discreditede charlatans. Marvellous. One just cannot argue against prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Dec 22, 2010 19:00:25 GMT 1
...or reality.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 22, 2010 19:26:10 GMT 1
...or reality. Would be nice if you were to produce some science. Could you do that?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Dec 22, 2010 23:02:50 GMT 1
Isn't observing and recording sst for over 40 years, science?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 22, 2010 23:14:47 GMT 1
Isn't observing and recording sst for over 40 years, science? Depends who's doing the observing son.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 23, 2010 4:27:09 GMT 1
Have you done any "observing" of temperature at all, abacus, by the way? If not, don't be so fast with the put downs, please.
At least Mr Smith's data are "raw" and real, not the "adjusted" stuff which is what mainly accounts for the phenomenon of so-called "global" warming.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 23, 2010 9:53:15 GMT 1
Have you done any "observing" of temperature at all, abacus, by the way? If not, don't be so fast with the put downs, please. I'm not qualified to but there are people who are that I put my faith in.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Dec 23, 2010 10:32:15 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 23, 2010 11:05:36 GMT 1
Principled, I'm increasingly drawn to the conclusion that you are, in fact, a wolf in sheep's clothing. I say this because despite presenting an agnostic stance in general towards the AGW hypothesis you do, now and then, expose your essentially anti-scientific sentiments when pressed. How disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Dec 23, 2010 15:56:49 GMT 1
Isn't observing and recording sst for over 40 years, science? Depends who's doing the observing son. It also depends who's doing the "adjusting" and "homogonising". Haven't you a flicker of doubt in the claims of mann, jones, briffa, hansen and co? Or are you simply devout?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 23, 2010 16:39:11 GMT 1
Personal attacks on people engaged in the climate change science is a very poor way of attacking their data.
Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 23, 2010 20:12:47 GMT 1
Their data IS what is being attacked. They get it in the neck for persisting in promoting a hypothesis which they can only demonstrate via wonky models and highly "adjusted" data. People who persist in inflated claims in the absence of any proof and earning a living from it are charlatans. Calling themselves "scientists" is no guarantee of excellence. Only willing "useful idiots" are impressed with this phoney "science". The sceptics are the ones promoting REAL scientific values. Increasingly research is throwing doubt on the CAGW hypothesis. Just because the CAGW ideology is entrenched in the centres of power and influence does not make it right any more that the earth-centred universe that also had its promoters in high places.
|
|