Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming II

So because there is no current sign of dropping that means it will never drop, end of story? Your logic is abysmal. You best be trollin'

 

None of the Warmer "remedies" for AGW address what happens when oil runs out. Their "remedies" make life miserable in the interim.

 

Isn't finding a new source of energy the perfect remedy for when oil runs out? The interim is building toward a time when we can actually accomplish this feat.

 

So what is your "new source?"

How does the Durban nonsense address new energy sources?

 

First off, we aren't talking about Durban. That is unrelated and irrelevant. Second, had you read the most recent posts you would see I meant renewable energy (any or all of them). I'm honestly surprised to see someone who hasn't felt the push toward renewables already.

 

Unfortunately, you cannot divorce AGW from Durban, Kyoto, and the UN.

 

Of course we can. Especially in the context of this conversation, in which their participation (or lack of) in finding alternative energy sources is immaterial, seeing as there are already a number of 'warmist groups' actively working on alternative energy sources.

 

Why it is wrong or why you are very wrong - for a start not even someone with a PHD in climate science could compare your two links because not only is one six years older than the other but THEY ARE ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

So I will concentrate on your blog for the purposes of clarity I will colour the blog quotes in purple

Okay - nice opening saying what? It cleverly sets up a standard, one which we all can agree on and then heaps on the insinuation that there are those who do not follow this method. No names, no facts to back this, just an insinuation

For the sake of brevity I will leave out the bits where he waxes lyrical about the scientific method because that is just the old "tell enough truth so that no one will notice the lies" ploy

THIS is the bit where we see the next sleight of hand

See how the "peer review" process is touted when it comes to talking about Roy Spencer and then watch how later in the same blog it is vilified

But wait- since then more has come out about this "peer reviewed paper"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Seems that Dr Roy, not for the first time, has got one or two figures wrong.....

And I have not really even got started yet - do you REALLY want me to continue??

 

Yep! If you cannot summon up an argument then just trot out a conspiracy theory

 

You show no proof just typical BS You have nothing. Wind turbines have been around for decades and they still cost a million plus to buy.

 

Nothing the GW crowd has proposed is working. Most makes things worse. Ethanol has hurt us by raising the price of corn to record levels.

 

Durban is relevant in that it shows what the IPCC is pushing on us. Show specifics on renewable energy

 

Show the specifics on the groups and sources

 

So the GW people disagree because it shows their models are wrong. That is not proof.

 

Not to mention so-called 'environmental' gas additives like MTBE that has poisoned ground water in CA.

 

Is MTBE any worse than denatured alcohol?

 

Yes it has been banned because it has contaminated ground water and could cause cancer. If your water tastes like turpentine it most likely has MTBE in it.

 

yes it is proof - and you just owned on that one

Don't try it again because you are simply demonstrating you do not have the correct cognitive construct in relation to the science of climatology

 

This thread has gone over 500 posts and is being closed.
A continuation thread may be started by someone or the OP if so desired.

JP5
Moderator