Assume what you'd like!
What does that have in your favor for sea ice? Much of the sea ice of Antarctica is outside the Antarctic Circle. Virtually none of the Arctic ice is outside the Arctic Circle.
What are you trying to say?
Am I to assume you realized you point was invalid, so you won't tell me?
Assume what you'd like!
That's just it. I want a strait question. I will not assume.
OK... I will assume that you agree that I have a point when I point our that since you agree that observation equals causality, that soot is why the average northern sea ice is in retreat while the Southern sea ice isn't. And I'm not speaking of seasonal variations, but the long term changes.
Ok, you do that!
Since you're not man enough to say what's on your mind, I will. Wanting me to be a mind reader. ... That's what women do to us.
If you're as bad at reading women as you are at reading English then I'm not surprised you'd have issues there.
I get it Manny. You're tired of me always proving you wrong. That's why you want me to guess.
Thats it.
I'll tell you what. let's try this again.
Non of us disagree that the norther sea ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern sea ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?
Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern sea ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther sea ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern sea ice follows that increase pretty good.
[/QUOTE]
What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?
This is a lie. Where is the quote from the article of me claiming they are communists?
In the context of my article they are yours alone as my article has nothing to do with the, "Red Scare". I have never referenced Buckley to support an argument. Your obsession with him is entertaining though.
I have a REAL hard time believing you vote for the Libertarian party, they are not the only third party on most ballots. The Green Party would fit your views better than the Libertarian party.
No but if you do not share a majority of their views, it makes you confused.
Yes, it makes you a socialist. Supporters of a mixed economy are socialists. It is irrelevant to how well it is split across party lines as both parties contain socialists. Medicare Part D was socialist, so was the bailouts of the financial sector and the auto industry.
The length that socialist laws have existed does not make them any less socialist. Property laws are part of the frame work for a capitalist economic system.
This is true which is why I believe it is more effective to be a Libertarian in the Republican party. While the Libertarian political party has not had much success, Libertarians effectively have with Libertarian Republicans; Senator Rand Paul, Representative Ron Paul, Former Representative Mark Sanford and Former Senator Barry Goldwater among others.
You really have a reading comprehension problem. My comment about them making false statements was in relation to why their paper was listed.
You have dodged this,
Why do the author's believe their papers were listed?
Where am I claiming to be the arbiter of anything outside of what I actually think?
You have dodged this,
Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?
ExxonMobil has given unsolicited donations to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which he is president. None of which has changed his position on the issue,
His objections to AGW Alarm date back to 1980 in the peer-reviewed literature, long before the center existed."Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue. [...]
That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that." - Sherwood Idso
Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?
Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 05:46 AM.
I believe there is evidence to show it has had an anthropogenic component.
These lib s do this all the time. They dismiss any paper, article, etc. if they can loosely attach an energy company to it.
I brought it up as comparison to something that I have seen more compelling evidence for not as compelling evidence for global climate change.
If you could come up with an original argument that has not been refuted about the list I would not be forced to repeat myself. Regardless, I am typing every reply here except for the quotes and links. I have addressed every argument about the list ad nauseum.
How large of a component?
Also, you failed to elaborate on CO2's affect on the climate and what you meant by it not being a driver.
What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?[/QUOTE]I'll tell you what. let's try this again.
Non of us disagree that the norther sea ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern sea ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?
Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern sea ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther sea ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern sea ice follows that increase pretty good.
The sun is the driver. Other factors are feedbacks.
It is a typical propaganda tactic to smear credentialed scientists they emotionally refuse to accept simply do not agree with them scientifically. To them if a scientist does not believe in AGW Alarm they are obviously corrupt and "evil". If they did not believe this they would have to rationally consider their arguments and that would actually cause cognitive dissonance.
It is emotionally easier for them to believe climate skeptics are all either conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious zealots, right-wing partisans, corrupt or evil.
Is this an irrefutable fact?
We've been over this before, but you didn't participate:What do you have to say about black carbon on ice?
Black Carbon Global Warming
My opinion is it is observed to the point that the opinion has very relevant statistical significance.
Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined. I am aware of the papers on this subject.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
