GT...you have only been registered since January......"years and years?" talk about exaggeration. unless you want to tell us your previous name on this board, you can't go claiming years and years of responses to me. for the record, your posts have always been about as poor as the ones on this thread. (although i did appreciate your creation post on Quacks a few days ago....)
you are being ridiculous hiding behind pure sensationalism. my posts are largely to sites that are probably pro-AGW (in the sense that they believe in it)........my posts on the growth of the Antarctica in particular is from this site: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ which is where i got these graphs: global ice and this: Southern Hemisphere by all means....show me how the Antarctica is shrinking oh professor of rhetoric. how is my post misleading? where is this crazy nutjob site i am getting my info from?
Steinbeck, please notice in terms of the Antarctica that since records began being kept in 1979 the annual maximum has grown from 14 million square kilometers to a peak (yes peak) of over 16 million kilometers just this past winter. now, let's get specific. you keep claiming that i am some sort of a Svengali trying to trick all the poor idiots (that's your implicit claim) on this board who aren't smart enough to see through my poor rhetoric. show me how this fact is misleading. show us how this is misrepresenting, in any way, the situation in the South Pole. do i have a bad source? do i have a misleading data piece? is this graph wrong for some reason i am not aware of? is this site i found some sort of right wing site that is just lying? please clear this all up for us. we can take my facts one by one and see how you do since you refuse to give even one example of my misleading anyone in any way. yet you continue to malign my character and my motives.
so still no response then eh steinbeck.....speaking of MO, yours is becoming VERY evident. you blather on and on confidently and full of bravado and machismo, but say nothing. now back to my question......what have you to say? show me all the things you are claiming about me specifically in my most recent post with data.
I appreciate Steinbeck fighting the good fight, but a pound of logic is often unappreciated by the person carrying a ton of ********. Even George Bush paid lip service to global warming by making a verbal agreement on carbon emissions reduction at the latest K8 (?) conference. Easy for him at this point, since he is about to jump ship.
********, mop. Take a stand. Where do you stand on the IPCC warnings? Give us your educated opinion. We know you don't think ice melt is a problem; just about everyone else who's really paying attention does, including almost all who really matter. But what about the other stuff, which you artfully avoid, despite your pretty clear hints? Tell us where you stand on climate change, because you already know where I stand, even when I don't lay out specifics. You're the one who's waffling and wavering and trying to hold up the facade of "the voice of reason" when all of your implications are clear. You think all the concerns over climate change are a bunch of crap, but you appear to lack the cojones to say it. You want to hide behind a bunch of links that you've woven together into a cute little argument that YOU don't have to own up to even when it's clear what you're saying. The worst epithet in your book appears to be "rhetorician" when you are nothing more than a closeted pseudoscientific master of empty, evasive rhetoric yourself. You have persistence and access to the Internet, the place where anyone can weave an argument that looks good to those who won't read. Nothing more. But together, they make mighty big stack of ********.
you are hilarious steinbeck....the more i challenge you to actually make an argument, the more you go into attack mode. if you dont' want to discuss actual data and facts, then go to some other thread and tell everyone how great you are at argument. tell us all how you COULD win the argument if you ever actually tried. tell us how you would "fail" us if we turned in a paper to you....blah blah blah. do you have any real and substantive response to my latest challenge? you have accused me of many things throughout this entire thread and yet you are not willing to back up any of it? for the record, i think the climate has changed in the past 100 years....i think it is still changing as it always has. i am very suspicious about any anthropogenic causes. i dont' think that is a secret to anyone who has read my posts. why it is to you is utterly beyond me. i have not been quiet about this at all....in fact, i have said it over and over in almost any thread on this topic for the past several months..........you need to work on your skill of interpretation. now....back to you. are you going to respond to my VERY SIMPLE challenge? or are you to scared or incapable? show me how i have twisted any data on my latest post about the Antarcrtica.....and stop invoking authority, strawmen and other logical fallacies. prove to us that you are actually capable of making an argument and not just making a grand statement about making an argument. i am all ears (or eyes as the case may be).........
Now THAT was entertaining, blueglasshorse. At least you have a good sense of humor. mop: It's clear that faith and belief are more important to you than anything. Good luck to you in your theological career.
wow steinbeck.....well at least you told us you were a rhetorician....i was just hoping you would actually make an argument. i see now that you don't have it in you. in fact, you don't have much of anything in the way of facts, data or actual analysis. instead you are a sniper who maligns me again and again, but can't even respond to the most simple of questions. it looks like those who called you out (besides me) were correct about their summation of you. i was curious to see if you had anything beyond bluster....... i guess you answered our question. i wish you well in your career as a rhetorician....hopefully no one who learns from you will ever have to receive empty blasts from you as i have had to endure the pas 5 days.
back to the topic at hand......from steve McIntyre at climate audit: Day 191 Race Report I mentioned yesterday that 2007 was entering some active stages and that 2008 would have to play with a lot more urgency to keep up than it had being. 2008 lost about 64,000 sq kn to 2007 and is now 740,000 sq km behind (all figures IARC-JAXA daily extentThe Link month day year ice diff 7 10 2002 9.382344 -0.072344 7 10 2003 9.362500 -0.063438 7 9 2004 9.534063 -0.062343 7 10 2005 8.768750 -0.079063 7 10 2006 8.359688 -0.097031 7 10 2007 8.233906 -0.135157 7 9 2008 8.973594 -0.071875 remember, if you have a problem with what he is reporting, find fault in the data not the person.
I did a search on Highwire journals/Science mag; to see recent articles on Polar Ice. I know mop won't. Found an interesting one from January; apparently evidence of ice sheets during the hottest periods of the Cretaceous have cast doubt on the assumption that intense global warming necessarily removes all polar ice. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;319/5860/189
Give it up, mop. Your calling is to be a preacher, not a punk. Let me put this in terms that you deal with, because you're not meeting everyone else on scientific terms. God allows you to see the same facts everyone else can see. How you choose to deal with them is between you and God. Personally, I think you are extremely misguided and I'm glad there are alternative theologies and churches who look at environmental science with a broader view than you do. Others might view what you do as living a lie. But none of us are God, as you well know, so our views don't matter. I have nothing to add to what bierce and others have already said. It would just be more facts and links that you choose to ignore and misinterpret. My arguments substantially mirror theirs, as I've already pointed out and you've chosen to ignore. I deal with environmental science in my classes. When people come to me with work like yours, I point them in the right direction to fix it, based on prevailing wisdom in the scientific and educational systems. If they don't, that's not my problem on a personal level. It becomed my problem when they get loose in the world and effect policy. That's when I call their line of thought what I think is fit. What you do is very different than what I do. You're a paid professional in the realm of belief, not science. Your career clearly affects your thought processes, as mine shapes my own thoughts. You are obviously free to continue posting the same malarkey and McIntyreisms as long as you want. I'm going to refrain from the type of comments I've made earlier because you seem completely impervious to either facts and logic or revulsion and ridicule. Basically, you're a brick wall and it's pointless. Say what you want, but I suggest you lay off me as well. You want a truce, you got it. It's your move, Reverend.
Steinbeck- I gotta say you are really making yourself look horrible. I won't speak for mop but what I guess he is saying is this: We are definitely seeing "climate change". There has always been climate change in our planet's history. According to you and others this recent climate change is mostly/greatly attributed to human activities. This is where opinions diverge. When I look at mop's data it certainly appears that 2008 will be colder than 1979 and the total ice coverage of the world will be equal to or slightly greater than it was in 1979. Logic tells me that if human activity was primarily responsible for the recent climate change that it shouldn't be colder now than 30 years ago. The human activity that supposedly caused the warming has massively increased in the last 30 years yet the earth's temp has gone down. All mop seems to be asking you is how to explain this data. It seems to me the data would suggest other factors have a much greater impact on climate than man. Question: When the Hansen guy made his statements to congress 20 some odd years ago, what do you think his answer would have been if someone asked him the chances that the earth's temperature would be cooler in 2008 than it was on the date he made his statement?
Steinbeck, your claim, that you are a journalism and/or environmental journalism instructor (I noticed you didn't say "professor"), is the least persuasive statement made by any poster on this entire thread, based on all the evidence. As a writer, you are wholly unpersuasive. If you were a 1L (first year law student), YOU would recieve Fs. (I threw in the ALL CAPS just for you!) As a writing instuctor, your ability to evaluate other's writing as persuasive or not, regardless of the writier's particular point of view, is poor. I have no alternative but to call BS on your claim, that you teach writing on any level above 8th grade composition.
The problem with this subject, and a great many other scientific studies, is that it is not intuitive.
steinbeck...not to pile on (after all it seems that i am not the only one who sees through your smokescreen), but here is what you said:
GT- First, I applaud your well reasoned response. There are a lot of people that just don't know what to believe when it comes to man's effect on climate.
i do have to add that it seems incredibly cowardly to spend an entire thread bashing me endlessly steinbeck based upon my supposed distortion of facts and refusal to see the "truth" but when i ask you to point out these distortions you turn tail and run. how is that at all fair rhetorically speaking? do you not have any responsibility to back up your claims with actual evidence? at this point you are just playing a very poor game of ad hominem and not even backing that up. (yes, i am aware that i just accused you of behaving like a coward, but then i backed it up with evidence.)
