Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss 
My links ... the entirety of my posts ... are the result of analysis of professionally published information, no original work or conclusions on my part.
SO, you see, the accusation that I have a "somewhat limited level of understanding" on the subject actually is a reflection of your disagreement with professionals in the field in question, not any reflection on my understanding of the science at all. It is, of course, your right to disagree, but you really should be aware of whom you disagree with. I have no personal investment in the subject, I don't think it makes me look "smarter" or anything to disagree with others, I just read what I read and conclude what I conclude based on what credibility is earned by the authors of the studies and papers I read. I give more credence to facts and not alarmists who throw accusations around like flower petals at a wedding, so that's why Hanson is ignored. Let him continue trying to get attention by making unfounded claims like "1998 the hottest year on record". I'll continue reading articles that don't fabricate the data for the graphs they use.
Like I said earlier in this thread - I just read what's written and try to ignore the politics. I can understand how attractive it might be to feel superior ... to feel above the unwashed and unlearned, but I would caution against throwing in with politicians when science is the topic.
In the end, the news that doesn't get published on CNN is more interesting than the news that does -
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
If the fact that arctic sea ice had increased in the last several years been published, I would consider the topic devoid of politics - but since it's not been advertised and we're still doing the "save the poor polar bears" thing, well, I am forced to conclude that politics is running the show. That makes the claims suspect, at least as far as I'm concerned.
My links ... the entirety of my posts ... are the result of analysis of professionally published information, no original work or conclusions on my part.
SO, you see, the accusation that I have a "somewhat limited level of understanding" on the subject actually is a reflection of your disagreement with professionals in the field in question, not any reflection on my understanding of the science at all. It is, of course, your right to disagree, but you really should be aware of whom you disagree with. I have no personal investment in the subject, I don't think it makes me look "smarter" or anything to disagree with others, I just read what I read and conclude what I conclude based on what credibility is earned by the authors of the studies and papers I read. I give more credence to facts and not alarmists who throw accusations around like flower petals at a wedding, so that's why Hanson is ignored. Let him continue trying to get attention by making unfounded claims like "1998 the hottest year on record". I'll continue reading articles that don't fabricate the data for the graphs they use.
Like I said earlier in this thread - I just read what's written and try to ignore the politics. I can understand how attractive it might be to feel superior ... to feel above the unwashed and unlearned, but I would caution against throwing in with politicians when science is the topic.
In the end, the news that doesn't get published on CNN is more interesting than the news that does -
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
If the fact that arctic sea ice had increased in the last several years been published, I would consider the topic devoid of politics - but since it's not been advertised and we're still doing the "save the poor polar bears" thing, well, I am forced to conclude that politics is running the show. That makes the claims suspect, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Not so, for if it were "professionally published information" you'd be able to give the proper citation reference, publication, volume, etceteras.
The only acceptable place for critiques of climate science research in the form of technical publications of the climate science is in itself in said same technical publications also known as highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science publications. I've mentioned this now at least half a dozen times, and each time it's been completely ignored. I wonder why?
That the Denialists/Contrarians can not do this is undeniable proof that they can not do so, for obvious reasons. Their counterarguments could not, would not, can not, withstand the peer reviewed process.
The politics? You have repeatedly posted links to the politics, and this has now been pointed out on numerous, no many, occasions.
All the other links you've posted, have been in the form of the well known non sequiter. Define arctic ice, because the polar ice cap has reached the two lowest minima in 2007 and 2008, since the satellite era began (1979). No getting around that fact.
Like your last link, let's see where we are when it really counts, around the fall equinox;
Quote:
Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt.
If I were to wear a tinfoil hat, which I don't, I'd almost think that we've (meaning you and me specifically) have danced this dance before here in PO. Hmm ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
\
