Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Ok, so in review then, there does seem to be about at least a 7 year period of noticeable Global ice decrease. Presently Global ice extent appears to be back at record levels for the 35 year satellite record. Nobody appears to be able to show that is not the case.

That's all Taylor said. Now you might say "So what. Other stuff matters." I might even agree with you, but the argument that goes "Taylor's a Denier, cause he doesn't agree with me, so that make him wrong," is wrong. What figures are presently available appear to support him.

The argument that says the Arctic melt is increasing therefore you can't say Globally the Arctic and the Antarctic ice viewed together is where it was when satellite records began is wrong. Taylor's statement may or may not matter, but it does not appear to be incorrect.

Not that it matters, but the argument that suggested there was a comprehensive record of Arctic ice extent before the satellite record also appears to be wrong. No such record exists. There were some scattered records of partial information geographically and historically, but you have to do some major extrapolation or Disneyesque imagineering to reach broader assumptions.

   

Also to add to your review; Taylor posts yet another headline meant to misinform people, and give himself more page views and therefore more revenue.

   

Well, if deceptive titles actually bothered you, you'd never read another one of your alarmist articles. I mean how's the gravity where you are? Still got some. Do you believe in Polar bears. Because if I believed the headlines of articles I've seen you post from the CBC those things would be gone.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Apparently the satellites where the data originates are NASA, so that appears to be more right than wrong as a raw fact. But when he says "Polar Ice Retreat" that's kind of deceptive. North is a Pole, and his article would not apply to northern polar. And "any" means any. That headline is tricky in a way I usually associate more with your side. Bad boy, James Taylor.

I don't know how much sneakiness you can write off to personal aggrandizement or desire for wealth though. Boots is correct there. Taylor does represent a right wing think tank. Global Warming skepticism is among its agendas. That's just a fact and would quite possibly go to motive as to why he might want to overstress the importance of global ice extent levelling off.

Agenda driven journalism and politically driven influence exists on both sides of this argument though. Personally I think its more prevalent on the side you favor. Oh well, c'est la guerre.

We can only watch for facts that might dribble out of the mess of agendas and try to make up our own minds.

   

Thumbs up on that post!

   

Maybe you might want to read the first paragraph again. You might want to take your thumbs back. I was just editing as you posted.

   

I thought you had a double dose of your meds today, so I just left it alone. It's the preferred method for dealing with the unstable.

   

Do tell me again how pure and above the ad hominem attacks you are Doc.

   

I've never said I was above them. I said I didn't like using them.

But since you decided to ad hominem me, I figured one good turn . . . That's just the day I'm having!

If I've ever posted a link, from the CBC or otherwise, that said there is no gravity or no polar bears, I'd love to read it!

   

   

I clicked that link. I thought it might actually exist.

Yeah, the Polar Bear one...it concerned another computer model, except this one was new, you see. Turns out the last one was correct. It's tits up for Polar bears soon. If only those damned real world surveys would stop telling us about polar bear populations that are actually growing.

As to the global warming killing gravity thing, OK, maybe the CBC didn't actually say that, but they did say:

Polar ice loss affecting gravity hint, hint.

Basically some group got the money to pull another nutty theory out their butts so start worrying about flying off into space.

   

So, I didn't actually say any of the above. Hint, Hint.

   

I read both the articles here. Just did a quick search. OK, I might owe you an apology on the gravity one. It's possible that wasn't you.

Melting Ice Could Cause Gravity Shift

But the one I read saying the same thing (new study I guess) was more recent, and it was in current events, I think.

Can't find the polar bear one, but I read it here too. It's about several months old.

   

You mean the one from the Los Angeles times?

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=87641

The one with the actual observations of Western Polar Bear declines? I'm glad you browsed it, but sad that you didn't actually read it.

   

What's nutty about that? If you shift the mass distribution you'll shift gravity. Flying off into space? Where do you come up with this stuff?



Do the math.

   

And, it's not wrong about polar ice loss affecting Gravity. We see the relativistic effect using the GPS satellites and the effect of gravity of things like mountains on the passage of time for the satellite. Ice loss would have the same effect I'm betting.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next