Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
Recent Comments
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Bob G on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Jimmy Haigh on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- czechlist on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
gee, and only 50 years after the Little Ice Age…………….
That can not be as it was Before Satellites! Weather and climate were stable before satellites. Maybe in this case correlation is causation and the launching of satellites disrupted the ocean atmosphere interface causing catastrophic climate.
BS. I like it!
So this article is dated 26 April 1939. 40 years BS.
Presently it is 12 August 2011. 32 years AS.
CS
Current Satellite!!!!
PMS
Post Modern Satellite
After Satellite Syncronazition
???? ??????
Load of rubbish. They can judge 20% ice loss from ” ship observations ” … like what obversations did they do?
From that they managed to explain Baffin Bay and also India getting hotter.
Wow, that is some extrapolation.
Andy
Some people have trouble with reading and comprehension – or at least the comprehension part.
Does the newspaper article say that Arctic sea ice shrank? No, it says Barents Sea ice shrank. The Barents is a marginal arctic sea – today it is essentially ice-free four months of the year. Scientific research shows the maximum August sea ice extent for the Barents Sea occurred in 1866. Minimum extent was in 1995, but as a marginal arctic sea it is highly variable and little can be extrapolated from Barents sea ice extent minima or maxima to the arctic as a whole.
Yes you do. You seem to have missed the part about 18 years of research showing warmer winters and hotter summers at both poles. Just flew right over your head.
In other words – you have no defense for your misleading title.
If you actually read the article it says a FORECAST for warmer winters and summers. Didn’t I just say that extrapolating (forecasting) from a marginal arctic sea is unreliable? I answered your little red-herring argument before you even made it – and you never even noticed 🙂 Duh!
You see, I can read and I actually understand the words as written.
You use trivial facts, anecdotes, etc the way a drunk uses a lamp-post – for support, not illumination.
You are an idiot.
SG:You are an idiot.
Translation: Poor reading and comprehension skills leads to misleading headline and epic fail rebuttal. SG can’t answer with facts or logic so he resorts to meaningless insults. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You, my friend, are a sad excuse for a sentient being, but very entertaining in a Three Stooges/ Keystone Kops sort a way. It always brightens my weekend to read the surreal stupidity that originates here.
What a moron
I called that one in advance 🙂
KO: SG can’t answer with facts or logic so he resorts to meaningless insults. Lather, rinse, repeat. .
Recession? Quick! Somebody please tell Obama the shrinking ice is the cause of the poor economic recovery!