NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Cool, I can play the google headlines game too:


Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming

Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again

"Climategate" Scientists Cleared of Wrongdoing - Again

"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

CRU climate scientists 'did not withhold data'

No, climate scientists are not manipulating their data


wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

a reply to: Phage

Well obviously the trend is lower than average temperature, as per the local temperature readings.

Certainly not "Much Warmer than average" as indicated on this map.

Interestingly April was also below average, as has May been so far.

Make of that what you will, but we are heading for Global cooling in my area .

Sorry, what answer are you referring to?

a reply to: gort51

Sorry, what answer are you referring to?

The one to your question.

a reply to: Phage

But I didnt ask a question, I merely stated the facts as recorded by Expert Meteorologists.

Ah yes I see...you are mistaking my "Rhetorical Question" as an actual question.

Sorry, it is meant to emphasize a statement, not ask an actual question.

Yes thankyou, I am aware the figures are suppose to be from the National (as in USA presumably) climate centre.

But where did they get their figures from?

Not from the source it seems.

If satellite, then perhaps the satellites provide a different measurement, from actual ground measurements.

Which bring us back full circle to what this thread is about.......

a reply to: gort51

But where did they get their figures from?

Did you bother looking for the answer?

a reply to: Phage

Sorry, I must have missed it, could you please provide the answer?

Thx.

a reply to: gort51

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

you don't seem to be useful to solving this problem anyhow

Well put, Spiramirabilis.

I would go further and suggest that people who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change are actually obstacles to our ability to cope with the biggest challenge to the future of humanity since Mt Toba erupted.

Writing with respect to the problem of overpopulation in his seminal paper The Tragedy of the Commons, the biologist Garrett Hardin observed that the only way to save the ecology is to forcibly restrict human breeding.

Climate change is essentially a symptom of overpopulation.

The era of the freedom of the commons is over. In the future we may have to radically restrict personal liberty, and all common resources -- even water, even air -- will have a price tag on them.

Some of our freedoms will also have to go. The quaint anachronism Americans call 'the right to bear arms', for instance, will soon be history. So will the right to plant what crops you like, keep pets and livestock, use powered private transport, etc.

Either that, or environmental collapse followed by social implosion, anarchy, and a return to the Bronze Age for the few hundred thousand who survive -- if they're lucky.

In fact, the born-again Republican Paradise in a nutshell. No wonder they're so keen to gobble up and destroy what's left of the planet.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey, whatever works to make you feel better--attack the source instead of the information or the person from whom the quote came. Classic logical fallacy.

Funny how you complain about a source as having an ingrained spin, yet link to "Earth Times," a website with an obvious ideological agenda.

We both cited the NSIDC with differing conclusions (although mine cited an overall of ice extant, while yours discussed one single day). Funny how that works...

One single day? Think you missed something. The claims from your Dailyspin are completely made up, otherwise we wouldn't have seen Arctic sea ice at record low. Now think again how and why the dataset form 'one (record low) day' was able to prove the whole Dailyrubbish wrong. You tell me now.

Earthtimes... forget about it, really. Just look at the data, all information regarding the article is attached, which was not the case in your source. Now tell me again they are 'ideologically blinded'. You are just defending your little funpaper with no facts to prove your point at all.

"There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."

www.earthtimes.org...

No thicker ice and therefore no more resilience to future melting. All the data is only some clicks away, just do it!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

you don't seem to be useful to solving this problem anyhow

Well put, Spiramirabilis.

I would go further and suggest that people who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change are actually obstacles to our ability to cope with the biggest challenge to the future of humanity since Mt Toba erupted.

Writing with respect to the problem of overpopulation in his seminal paper The Tragedy of the Commons, the biologist Garrett Hardin observed that the only way to save the ecology is to forcibly restrict human breeding.

Climate change is essentially a symptom of overpopulation.

The era of the freedom of the commons is over. In the future we may have to radically restrict personal liberty, and all common resources -- even water, even air -- will have a price tag on them.

Some of our freedoms will also have to go. The quaint anachronism Americans call 'the right to bear arms', for instance, will soon be history. So will the right to plant what crops you like, keep pets and livestock, use powered private transport, etc.

Either that, or environmental collapse followed by social implosion, anarchy, and a return to the Bronze Age for the few hundred thousand who survive -- if they're lucky.

In fact, the born-again Republican Paradise in a nutshell. No wonder they're so keen to gobble up and destroy what's left of the planet.

Then there will be worldwide opposition to your unholy dreams of your utopia and worldwide war.

Do you realize what you sound like?

a reply to: Astyanax

a reply to: raymundoko

Go on, tell me. You know you're dying to.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Then there will be worldwide opposition to your unholy dreams of your utopia and worldwide war.

A congeries of totalitarian states, failed states and anarchies facing total environmental collapse is Utopia?

No, I'm not dying too, I just wanted to make sure that is your actual viewpoint and not some heated hyperbole. That way I don't waste the effort completely dismantling your point of view if it was just a rant.

a reply to: Astyanax

a reply to: Astyanax

One wants to be mindful and respectful of other people's opinions on this subject...

One does - but not me. Not anymore

Time's a wastin'

The era of the freedom of the commons is over. In the future we may have to radically restrict personal liberty, and all common resources -- even water, even air -- will have a price tag on them.

Read a piece recently that suggested something I've always believed. If people know they have to sacrifice for the common good - they will. He used the wartime effort during WWII as an example

The realist and the girl scout in me are constantly duking it out. I know you're right. Many will roll up their sleeves and pitch in, but most will go kicking and screaming, even when things are obvious. The lack of food and water will still be a part of some conspiracy that can be undone by a few dedicated and well armed individuals in Idaho

God - I wish I had less of an imagination

Onward, ever onward

a reply to: Phage

Gee I guess they purged data just for fun, not because they had anything to hide, right?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Gee I guess they purged data just for fun, not because they had anything to hide, right?

What data was purged?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yes, your link showed data for one day and compared it to the same calendar date for years prior--it was the date that generally is seen with the highest accumulation of winter ice.

I clicked many links, but thank you for your concern.

a reply to: Astyanax

just so I'm clear

"quaint American freedoms" like the ability to defend ourselves or have freedom of movement need to go, but we are still going to be "free" to pay taxes. Taxes that will be spent buying grain that will be shipped to poor countries with higher birth rates than America and no food.

All this in the name of controlling the population?

Wouldn't it be easier to keep our cars, guns, and tax money then just stop the food shipments?