NASA tells us that Greenland is overheated and that 97% of the ice melted last summer. Ole Heinrich sent over this link describing the devastation.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
Recent Comments
- Allan Shelton on NASA Sea Level
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Ulric Lyons on Technology Advances
- oeman50 on NASA Sea Level
- Gordon Vigurs on NASA Sea Level
- Lasse on NASA Sea Level
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Greg in NZ on NASA Sea Level
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Gordon Vigurs on “fair & equitable”
Actually (and you know this), NASA said 97% of the SURFACE of Greenland melted over a short period last Summer. Ice cover is not ice volume. Why are you so persistent in this false dogma?
You have a persistant difficult understanding the difference between ice cover and ice volume. Ignorance or dogma?
“Sudden 97% ice melt in Greenland stuns Nasa”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2179007/Sudden-97-ice-melt-Greenland-stuns-Nasa.html
Steve,
This is FROM YOUR OWN LINK!
“Melting even occurred at Greenland’s coldest and highest place, Summit station. The thawed ice AREA jumped from 40 per cent of the icesheet to 97 per cent in just four days from July 8 to July 12.Although about half of Greenland’s icesheet melts over the summer, the speed and scale of this year’s melting surprised scientists, who described the phenomenon as ‘extraordinary’.
Son Nghiem of Nasa’s jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, California, was analysing radar data from Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone SURFACE MELTING on July 12.”
As I said — YOU KNEW THIS and still you purposely (and repeatedly) engage in a type of deception that you constantly blame on real scientists.
Brewski, are you a professional Turd Polisher by profession? Or is spin doctoring just a hobby of yours?
Read Steve’s link above and then tell me who is the spin doctor. Goddard, dismisses any talk of ice volume talk because he doesn’t trust it, butthe truth is that he doesn’t understand it (either that or he deliberately deceives himself and his readers because it doesn’t fit with his personal dogma).
Fortunately we can read the original article and appreciate its hysterical tone, and contrast this with your attempt at bullshitting, that implied otherwise. Enough said.
Hey Will, got any more of those “anti-AGW” papers that you apparently never read?
Don’t know what nonsense you’re talking about but I can see when you’ve bullshitted yourself into a corner you change the subject.
“Although about half of Greenland’s icesheet melts over the summer, the speed and scale of this year’s melting surprised scientists, who described the phenomenon as ‘extraordinary’.” – Daily Mail story on NASA press release.
Drewski – Perhaps you should direct your ire at the Daily Mail or at NASA.
Steve’s comment, while mocking, is quite valid. Apparently half the Greenland icesheet melts each summer and 97% did last year.
“Ice last melted at Summit station in 1889. ” – Daily Mail
And that would be before CO2 became a really big problem for NASA and the IPCC.
If you’ve ever expected denialists to ‘fess up’ to oversight or to exaggeration, you’d better have another think about it. There are recent studies showing they are psychologically blocked when it comes to admitting errors. And as Richard Feynman pointed out, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
“denialists” ?
And would you say NASA was alarmist in its reporting?
Projection.
@tckev I prefer it to the term denier, as this invokes visions of the “shoa”. It’s a term equally applicable to those who deny any human agency in climate change as well as to those whom the former group refer to as “alarmists”. Each group denies particular aspects of scientific endeavour for their own particular reasons, selecting from all the studies available in a search for confirmation of their beliefs – just as lawyers and theologians do.
I don’t bother too much with NASA reporting, I just look at their data and try to form my own judgement, just as I was trained to do some 50 – 70 years ago.
More psychobabble from idiots…
The question remains, where is Hendrick’s dog.
On the other coast of Greenland in Tasiilaq! 🙂
Drewski says:
February 21, 2013 at 11:42 pm
Brewski says…”Actually (and you know this), NASA said 97% of the SURFACE of Greenland melted over a short period last Summer. Ice cover is not ice volume. Why are you so persistent in this false dogma.
————————————————————————-
Any one with a few functioning brain cells knows Steve is mocking the alarmist headlines all over that proclaimed esentially what his headline says. It is called mocking in some circles. BTW Brewski, for how long did 97% of the surface melt?
Actually, anyone with a reasoning mind will know that Steve constantly deceives his readers with twisted headlines, half an article (always somehow omitting the crucial bits) or flat out untruths. This blog is but one example. You are so invested in your own belief system, you refuse to see that your emperor has no clothes.
What David is saying is true, I read this blog and Understand the mockery in Steve’s comments, only a fool wouldn’t understand that. no offense!
Don’t worry Sparks. He’s not smart enough to be offended.
I think he is concerned about people from “his” side of the argument getting mixed up and confused.
Pure projection in its finest form. ” … half an article (always somehow omitting the crucial bits) or flat out untruths …” When it comes to my specialty of digging into the accusation that skeptic scientists are crooks working for ‘big oil’, that is the exact tactic our AGW friends employ, their fingers permanently crossed behind their backs in paralyzed fear, hoping no one ever notices the the missing information and the sheer lack of actual evidence to support their claims.
Also note that anyone with a reasoning mind will know that MSM succeeds when it deceives their readers and viewers with twisted headlines, incomplete reports, outrageous alarmism, gross opinionated nonsense, and flat out lies.
This is of course the exactly the same with the true believers of AGW/Climate Change.
A bit OT, but relevant to the overall discussion, and quite compelling:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/135-atmospheric-co2-not-linked-to-humans-says-global-and-planetary-journal.html
Excerpt:
The study’s conclusion:
I love this quote from your link: “If verified by other scientists”. . . Want to bet it isn’t?
John O’Sullivan is a person who argues that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist (!!!) and he buys his degrees from an online degree mill and he is the guy who was dismissed from his teaching job from England over an issue to do with an under aged girl only to then author a book about a mature man’s struggle of “forbidden love” with an under aged girl.
I don’t believe that if you spent a lifetime looking, you could have found a less credible source for any argument about credible science.
Do you know that he was exonerated in a court of law over fella?
In my reply I mistakenly wrote:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/greenland-meltdown-update-4/#comment-194793
“Andrew Skolnick was fired because of his lying attacks on John.”
He was was fired long before he tried to hurt John with his claims.
Good ad hom. Pity the paper isn’t by him. Are you confused?
compelling? NOT
completely debunked here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/#ITEM-13053-0
There is not a syllable of slander in those statemants — all truthful. I am after all, a “truth teller”. It is telling, however, that you would leap to his defence.
Even if you’re right and the claim is wrong, I wouldn’t have much confidence in your reference to RC, who are a notorious for production of their own disinformation.
Yes he was, tommy, I understand it was due to the intervention by his daughter (the girl in question was her friend). However, did he also “earn” his supposed law degree or was it purchased online? Did he not also misrepresent himself to the law firm representing Dr Tim Ball? Did he not also claim that he has successfully litigated cases in the UK and the US? Does he also say that the Greenhouse Gas Effect doesn’t exist? And did he not also write a book about paedophilia?
A real stand-up sort of guy, this John O’Sullivan. You should be proud to have him as your inspiration.
Typical alarmist tripe. They can’t defend their position so slander is all that’s left. Get a life sleazeballs.
You are full of shit because John was telling the truth in court and he does have a license to do lawyer work.He won in court got support by the New York Lawyers Association and more all in the link below.
Huffington Post and their Lies about John O’Sullivan
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/huffington-post-and-their-lies-about-john-osullivan/
Andrew Skolnick was fired because of his lying attacks on John.
You are just another idiot who swallows the lies made by leftist turds.
Here is another link to show how badly you and other leftist jerks are mistaken about his legal education and experience:
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/huffington-post-and-their-lies-about-john-osullivan/#comment-2079
Now that you have been exposed as a mental midget over who John O’ Sullivan really is why don’t you slink back into your hole in the ground?
Well now I know for sure that you are a dishonest jackass since I discovered that John
O’Sullivan had already told you TEN days ago that he was innocent of the serious
charges about some young girl,yet you carry on as if you were not corrected and continue to slime him here and possible elsewhere therefore you are a maggot eating scum!
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/exposed-david-suzuki-uses-cult-of-celebrity-to-procure-young-girls/#comment-4076
Tommy,
Did I say he was found guilty?
“he is the guy who was dismissed from his teaching job from England over an issue to do with an under aged girl only to then author a book about a mature man’s struggle of “forbidden love” with an under aged girl.” All true.
Skeptics really do seem to have a problem with reading comprehension — sarcasm or not.
And John O’Sullivan does NOT have a legitimate law degree and is NOT a lawyer anywhere on God’s green earth.
Regarding Skolnick and O’Sullivan — you are couldn’t be more wrong on both counts. Its utterly laughable (though entirely predictable) that would elevate a person who resorts to buying his Law degree from an online mill (O’Sullivan) above a person who was nominated for the Pulizer prize for journalism (Skolnick).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_A._Skolnick
“In 1998, the Carter Center Mental Health Program awarded Skolnick with an inaugural Rosalynn Carter Fellowship for Mental Health Journalism to investigate the treatment of jail and prison inmates with mental illness.[10] His investigation led to the publication of two news reports in JAMA and to a special series in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch titled “Death, Neglect and the Bottom Line.” An article in August 2003 issue of Harper’s Magazine by Wil S. Hylton describes how Skolnick was quickly fired by the AMA when Correctional Medical Services, one of the for-profit health care companies criticized in the articles, threatened JAMA and the Post-Dispatch with litigation.[11] Unlike the AMA, the Post-Dispatch hired a law firm specializing in news media law to respond to the threat and nominated Skolnick and fellow reporters Kim Bell and Bill Allen for a Pulitzer Prize.[12]
Skolnick’s reporting has received numerous awards from health, media, and humanitarian organizations, including World Hunger Year,[13] the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Carter Center Mental Health Program, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, and other groups.[14] Skolnick, Bell, and Allen also received Amnesty International USA’s “Spotlight on Media Award” and were honored by Harvard University’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy as finalists for the Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Journalism. The following year, the American Medical Writers Association awarded Skolnick the John P. McGovern Medical for Preeminence in Medical Communication.[15]”
Brewski, none of these statements include the word ‘surface’ –
“A massive icesheet in Greenland has melted this month over an unusually larger area…”
“The ‘unprecedented’ melting is highest in three decades of satellite observation…”
“Melting even occurred at Greenland’s coldest and highest place, Summit station. The thawed ice area jumped from 40 per cent of the icesheet to 97 per cent in just four days…”
“Although about half of Greenland’s icesheet melts over the summer, the speed and scale of this year’s melting surprised scientists, who described the phenomenon as ‘extraordinary’.”
The word ‘surface’ is only mentioned twice in the article to clarify what really happened. The bulk of the article is hysterical in tone and highly misleading. Particularly the opening paragraphs that completely misrepresent the situation.
That’s why I consider you to be a nasty little Turd Polisher. When Steve mocked the article – which he had every right to do – you tossed out some bullshit to try to defend something that was clearly nonsense…
See Will,
This is my problem, Skeptics like you always saying the opposite to what is actually true. You know like Tommy saying Skolnick was fired because of O’Sullivan or that O’Sullivan has an actual law degree or like you with saying the word “surface” is not in the article Goddard has mangled.
Just because I like you so much will (you know, for that golden study), I am going to repost the paragraph. Please look for the capitalized word that starts with ‘S’ and ends with ‘E’.
“Son Nghiem of Nasa’s jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, California, was analysing radar data from Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone SURFACE MELTING on July 12.”
See Drewski, what people like you do is mindlessly nitpick about an irrelevant detail in order to distract from any intelligent discussion about the topic being discussed.
The NASA headline was fraudulent, and was contradicted inside the same article. It was intended to confuse the reader, and was wildly successful in confusing most news outlets.
Brewski you don’t address any of my arguments but simply repeat the same bullshit as if repeating yourself makes your nonsense more believable. But since you have nowhere else to go with this now, what else can you do except make a bigger fool of yourself?
Steve,
If you would be so kind as to read Will’s post directly above mine. As you can see, Will was doing nothing but nit picking over many statements in the article. Somehow, however, he missed the very word that has stirred up this hornet’s nest. and, of course, his negligence, resulted in another misplaced insult (what is it about this site?).
I was simply setting him straight (somebody has to do it). It would be nice to get an apology though.
And regarding headlines — editors design them to entice readers to read more. Apparently, however, your readers stop reading at the headlines. And it is extremely obvious that none of them have ever made it through an entire scientific paper or they wouldn’t constantly get slapped in the face by the very study they cite to make the opposite point.
The devil is in the details. Nit picking is what real science is all about, Steve.
The NASA article had a headline “unprecedented melt” and the same article said that it happens every 150 years.
Hyperbole is an essential part of sarcasm, but apparently some people lack the sophistication to appreciate that.
On the other hand, many ignorant people smitten by alarmist propaganda might actually believe that 97% of the 7,500 foot Greenland ice sheet melted from 2 hours of slightly above freezing temperatures!
And what about real science? Shouldn’t that be part of a blog called “Real Science”?
Perhaps, I am different from you — I usually read what is below the headlines and, apparently, that is unique among Steve Goddard’s readers.
Yes. Because we read and comprehend. We’re sorry you can’t pick up that 2nd part. Maybe you should just concentrate on personal hygiene and staying clear of freeways?
What made you slink down here and post a bunch of whining comments?
Trying to bore us with your feeble level bullshit or just your real personality pouring out unchecked?
Press F6 to get your much needed food pellet and go take a nap with your little red blanket.
Eric, if that was truly the case then what is the point of arguing about the substance of the NASA article which clearly states that 97% of the SURFACE melted?
No I don’t believe it — climate skeptics are willfully ignorant. You will grab on for dear life anything, no matter how tenuous, that reinforces your beliefs even if it means studiously ignoring the truth waiting to be read one sentence below. You are gullible and voracious readers of junk science by people with no scientific qualifications what-so-ever (see O’Sullivan above) and will dismiss, out-of-hand, any well researched and peer-reviewed study done by PhDs who come to a conclusion that you have already decided can’t be true.
To paraphrase, the wheels of science turn slowly but inexorably and will leave dust in their wake.
God you are a mindless troll. I’m thinking it’s a strong possibility that you are David Appell on happy pills.
Sunsettommy,
I meant to thank you for making me read Dr Meirer. Without you. I wouldn’t have learned that the AO was negative these past few years and could not have been responsible for the rapid depletion of Arctic ice volume since 2009 And that quote of his mentioning that “globally warming temperatures” were the culprit — that was pure gold.
Thanks Tommy.
Eric, If being a truth teller makes me mindless troll, then what do you refer to your self as?
I’m not into labels your truthiness.
Have a fiver to wager that 2017 is a lower anomaly than 2012?
I thought so. Your position is total BS.
Eric, you want me to enter into an online wager to be decided in 2017? And you are serious?
Umm, no thanks.
But, I will make a prediction. 2013 will be one of the top 5 warmest years on record as will 2014 and if either of these years has 7 months or more of an EL Nino, then that year will shoot to number 1.
BTW, heard the news out of China? How do you spell “carbon tax” in Mandarin?
I thought so.
You are a moron and a coward. It’s the bottom of the 9th inning and you have 2 outs and you are down a bazillion joules of OHC….
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/comment-on-ocean-heat-content-world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-1955-2010-by-levitus-et-al-2012/
“But, I will make a prediction. 2013 will be one of the top 5 warmest years on record as will 2014”
“On record” meaning in the history of Earth, or as in “recorded by an organisation that upwardly adjusts measurements made recently, and downwardly adjusts measurements made in the past, even after they’ve all already been adjusted before”?
“BTW, heard the news out of China? How do you spell “carbon tax” in Mandarin?”
So the Chinese population are going to suffer unnecessarily, too. How do you spell “several hundred new coal fired power plants” in Mandarin?
Brewski is a classic. He ignores the 99% of the article that is hysterical and misleading. He focused on one word – surface – which the average reader would miss.
In other words he defends an article that actually commits the ‘crime’ that he accuses Steve of. Steve’s ‘crime’ consists of mocking the stupidity of the article. This is apparently misleading. But the article isn’t…
Brewski is an excellent bullshit artist. Shame he is not smarter, though. It’s been my experience that people with average intelligence or better don’t attempt a defence of the indefensible.
My mistake Will. I thought 99% of the article was about the 97% of SURFACE melting in Greenland that Goddard “sarcastically” did not mention on purpose. What 99% are you talking about?
Dave,
“On record” meaning in the history of Earth, or as in “recorded by an organisation that upwardly adjusts measurements made recently, and downwardly adjusts measurements made in the past, even after they’ve already been adjusted before”?
“On record” means just as it states — measurements that have been “RECORDed”. Regarding adjustments, in our last foray, I linked you guys to an article that had further links to papers describing — in painstaking detail — the reasons why data needs to be adjusted — change of instrumentation, time of observation, etc, etc. and so on. Don’t tell me you didn’t read it? How are you ever going to learn? Even Goddard acknowledges that some instrumentation such as satellites need adjusting.
Oh yes, but you believe scientists are deliberately corrupting data to get rich, don’t you? Something about “democide” and scientists drawn to the “dark side” for money. That doesn’t make sense to me — don’t the fossil fuel companies earn more in an hour than all the world’s scientists earn in a year? And wouldn’t these mega rich companies want to use some of their money to prevent unflattering “warmist” papers from flooding the academic world particularly if it will imping upon their profits? And we know fossil fuel companies are not the most moral of institutions (BP anyone?), so why don’t they just buy off a few hundred or thousand scientists if these scientists are so corruptible? it would be so simple, but it just doesn’t seem to be going that way, does it?.
Dave, your explanation for why scientists would want to corrupt data for money doesn’t pass the smell test. Got any more stupid ideas?
Eric,
You pointed me to a paper by Pielke et al. and made some reference to baseball and then tried to insult me. Remember? That was a big mistake, because I went to the source paper and after the Title they made mention of 3 Key Points
World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010
Key Points
– A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat contentsince 1955
– One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
– The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
Putting a peer-reviewed paper in the hands of a skeptic is like putting loaded gun in the hand of an epileptic — you don’t know what is going to happen, but you know it won’t be pretty.
Thanks for that paper Eric. More evidence for my side.
Its like Christmas here in Logicville — First Goddard with his graph of shrinking Arctic Ice, then Will with his models explaining why the Arctic is shrinking and theAntarctic is not, then sunsettommy with his Dr Meier and negative AO and more global warming, then Dave with his multiple references to warming inside his numerous links and now Eric with his ocean warming.
Thank you, thank you, thank you but you really shouldn’t have.
Brewski aren’t you the same clown who when I gave you a link to a national academy of sciences paper co authored by 20+ researchers you immediately rubbished it and declared it wasn’t peer reviewed, then took a quote out of context? That’s why I call you out as a bullshitter.
A couple of additional comments on your idiotic ‘key points’ –
– A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat contentsince 1955
A strong positive linear trend exists in the world’s oceans heat content for thousand of years. We know this because we can use sea level rise as a proxy for heat content.
– One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
So?
– The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
Because you passionately believe this doesn’t make it so.
You are an unrepentant moron Drewski. You have a talent for pointing out insignificant and meaningless facts and trumpeting them like they mattered, all the while completely missing the point. I’m sure if I called you and PatN the moron twins you would immediately protest that you are not twins.
Pairing that with the fact that you don’t have the cojones to be $5 on warming wihin a 5 year period makes me absolutely sure you are perhaps the sorriest AGW troll to grace this blog.
And what about real science?
Why? Are you going to try it sometime instead of quoting yet more model data, and regurgitate more hypothesis.
I too imagined that there might be some science-literate voices here. The tone of responses to critical commentary tend to disabuse one of that notion fairly quickly.
That’s because your commentary is drivel intermixed with insults. Then you complain about the quality of the discourse. Hypocrite.
Will,
I won’t forget that you gave me that paper. Thanks. I already explained the mistake I made in referencing an opinion page — your actual study with those 20+ scientist is fantastic. All that evidence for the human fingerprint — truly great stuff.
Eric’s paper is good too — those 2 key points especially – “A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955 AND “The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs”
But I shouldn’t forget sunsetytommy making me read Dr Meier who pointed out that the AO may have been responsible for some of the Arctic ice destruction prior to 2009, but not over the past few years when things really began to deteriorate and that was because of “globally warming temperatures”.
You guys make wonderful researchers.
I am really touched by your generosity.
So you missed the part in the paper where they determined that the models had failed everywhere except in the arctic? Your human fingerprint evidence is pretty piss poor then isn’t it?
>BTW, heard the news out of China? How do you spell “carbon tax” in Mandarin?
There are thieves everywhere, esp in China. Why do you think so many of the people are so poor. So in one aspect, the carbon tax, China is finally catching up to the rest of the world with their thievery. It will only serve to make the poor poorer, and the rich richer.
“carbon tax in the nation building one coal powered plant per week? Ha, LOL. Brewski, Brewski Brewski, what beer have ya been drinkin lad.
What has beer got to do with facts?
China has a real problem with pollution and their scientists also believe that CO2 is causing global warming (much of their drinking water comes from the shrinking glaciers). The will soon unveil 7 versions of the carbon tax in 5 different provinces to find a system that works best for them.
South Korea and Australia last year, the European Union before that, New Zealand any time now plus a score of other countries are considering it.
Drewski: “The wheels of science turn slowly but inexorably and will leave dust in their wake.”
People such as yourself, who spin bullshit rather than discuss matters rationally or factually, are mocked. Hence the parodying of your name to ‘Brewski’. Clear now?
China introducing a carbon tax??How much Drewski??$1.50/tonne??
Don’t know Joe — really only know what I heard on the radio.(this rhymes BTW)
Whoa oh oh oh. . . . .
Greta job. But what you have obviously learned in your exchanges is that there is absolutely no science of any kind at real science. And the same idiotic nitwits who frequent here know no science and are headed for the dust bin of history.
1940 Shock News : Greenland Melt Approaching A Catastrophe
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/40934044?searchTerm=greenland%20%20melting%20catastrophe&searchLimits=
Has it ever occurred to you Pat, that you are a mindless left wing bigot with no interest in history or science?
Somewhere deep down in your cowardly stomachs, you all know that Drewski is right and that Steve Goddard is a bigoted liar. But you are all in too deep now, wallowing in your nasty ignorance, and you’re scared to drag yourself back towards the rest of humanity. That collective smug sneer on your faces barely flinches while you sit hidden behind your computers shovelling abuse instead of reading anything intelligent, but I bet you all go back to your wives, daughters and mothers and pretend to be sensitive fellas who care about your kids’ teddy bears. Shame there’ll be no real bears left in a few decades. You’re disgusting and you know it.
Drewski – leave them to their bitter vanities. They are as awful, in their own sad way, as the worst specimens of humanity have ever been.
I’m not joking, and don’t call me Shirley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA
You are right on. They are a pretty despicable bunch of right wing nut jobs.
Pat – you are a pretty despicable left-wing nut job.
Pat the fruit is back…
better that than being the laughing stock of the climate science world as you and this blog are. you know what they say “is it really possible for anyone to be as stupid and misleading as that goddard?”
Pat. Either show that I am incorrect, or you will be spam.
Posting hateful rhetoric without any support is unacceptable, and is a reflection of your very nasty and poor character.
The climate science world is the laughing stock of the rest of the scientific world so I don’t think anyone much cares what creepy people like you think. 😉
Now all he has left is psychobabble. Most of it projecting…
Be careful. RWNJs got guns – will travel.
Have you ever looked at any actual, unadulterated longterm temperature record from any real weather station in the real world, away from the UHI? If you did, deep down in your stomach you would realize these claims of catastrophic warming are highly exaggerated. Over the last 72 years, there has been only one 18 year period with significant warming, 1980 to 1998. The rest of the time, the temperature trend has been either flat or down.
Presumably, CO2 has been going up constantly over the last 72 years. That begs the question, if CO2 is so important, why has it caused significant warming only 25% of the time since 1940?
Thanx for the advice Shirley, but what I am really doing is a service to these people (whom I love whole heartedly).
My purpose here to speed these skeptics through the stages of “Skepti-scorliosis” a particularly insidious mental disorder. Treatment is in 4 stages — First comes “denial” (no explanation needed here), then comes “anger” (you are beginning to see this in many of the comments) anger eventually leads to “acceptance” then finally comes “intelligence”.
The journey from denial to intelligence is a difficult one, often filled with agony and back sliding. But, let me tell you, it is wonderful to see it happen. Nothing beats a smile on the face of an intelligent person.
I can’t help all of them, of course (some are simply too far gone poor bastards), but if I can help even one soul see the truth, then I am fulfilled.
Thank you for your support Shirley. If wish to donate to the cause, please send all you can to Dr Michael Mann at Penn State University in his fight against skepti-scorliosis.
Something happening to the real bears we weren’t told about?
Dishonest Drewski writes again:
“Sunsettommy,
I meant to thank you for making me read Dr Meirer. Without you. I wouldn’t have learned that the AO was negative these past few years and could not have been responsible for the rapid depletion of Arctic ice volume since 2009 And that quote of his mentioning that “globally warming temperatures” were the culprit — that was pure gold.
Thanks Tommy.”
A pure deflection on your part because the argument was whether there was less ice cover in the Arctic earlier in the interglacial than now and I quoted Dr. Meier who stated that yes it has been much lower than now and referred to a published science supporting it.This was but one of a few science papers and presentations I posted links to that stated similar low ice levels as what DR. Meier had talked about.
You are a gutter quality warmist.
No doubt he is considered an intellectual giant among his circle of believers. But among skeptics he is just another bullshitter who misdirects as soon as he paints himself into a logical corner.
Steve,
I apologise for helping Drewski get way off topic over John O’ Sullivan.
I will stop doing that.
His goal is to drag the conversation down a rat hole. Best not to follow him down into the filth.
Good idea, Stay as far away from John O’Sullivan as you possibly can.
Drewski,
It is becoming obvious that you are a complete scumbag.
The alarmists that can somehow claim catastrophe from a few hours of above freezing temperature on the Greenland ice cap have never watched snow melt. Those few hours might have change the crystal structure of a few grains of snow right on the surface, but that interval certainly did NOT melt anything. It takes many hours of much higher temperatures to supply enough heat to melt an appreciable amount of snow. Any skier knows this.
I am a skier and there are more than a few times I have witnessed powder turn to slush in the space of a few hours. It’s called spring skiing in Squaw Valley.
Yup. Corn snow I knew it as. OK for a different and challenging day on the piste, which is about as long as it will remain ski-able if a lot of people are using it. – dreadful if it subsequently begins to re-freeze.
I’m rather loathe to waste much time on pet photographer Andrew Skolnick, but a key fact needs to be pointed out, given Drewski’s previous post about Skolnick’s apparent status/credibility as a Pulitzer Prize ‘nominee’.
Skolnick has NEVER been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize…it’s just yet another disingenuous and inaccurate claim from this disgraced former journalist and current pet photographer/jewelry maker.
Drewski, please check out the Pulitzer Prize Committee website, especially the previous winners and FAQ sections (e.g. “we discourage someone saying he or she was “nominated” for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us”….see http://www.pulitzer.org/faq). The article Skolnick cites (“Death, Neglect, and the Bottom Line”) was NEVER nominated ..and, tellingly, the two leading co-authors of the article he crows incessantly about (Allen and Bell) have never claimed to have been nominated for a Pulitzer.
Ironically, Drewski/Skolnick also make reference to an online mill degree. By his own admission, Skolnick admits that his bachelors degree was obtained in just a year for the grand sum of $420, without having to submit a single term-paper (see http://www.aaskolnick.com/new/mybio.htm). Personally, I think this speaks volumes as to the intellect of the person we’re dealing with.
Challenging John O’Sullivan’s credentials is wholly legitimate Mr. Skolnick. Provided you don’t cross the line in terms of defamation AND accept that your own credentials have now become fair game (especially as you’ve now made court-worn affidavits as to your own credentials, most notably the ‘Pulitzer nomination’ whopper).
Despite his ‘free-speech’ posturing, Skolnick seems incapable of responding to counter-argument without either crying wolf/libel or attempting to throw irrelevant personal mud…he’s threatened both myself and JOS with a libel lawsuit…why not be a man and follow through, as promised?
Maybe third-time lucky (after Skolnick’s IMDS and CMS debacles?). He appears to have deceived Drewski as to his credentials…but not me.
I’d suggest that he now fully retires from journalism and relies on pet photography, jewelry-making, etc to pay the rent.
Mark G,
I accept your explanation of the Pulitzer Prize procedures. Andrew Skolnick was entered into their system in the hope he would be nominated as a prize winner. Apparently, not a lot of people know the procedure — now I do.
Here is Skonicks list of HONORS & AWARDS
-Robert P. Balles Prize in Critical Thinking, 2006
-John P. McGovern Medal for preeminent contributions to medical communication, from American Medical Writers Association, 2000
-“Entered” into the system for a Pulitzer Prize Nomination for Investigative Reporting, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1999
-Amnesty International USA’s Media Spotlight Award, 1999
-Harvard University’s Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting Finalist Award, 1999
-First Prize in Community Affairs/Public Interest News Writing from Missouri Associated Press Managing Editors, 1999
-Missouri Press Association’s Best Investigative Reporting Prize for Dailies, 1999
-Rosalynn Carter Fellowship for Mental Health Journalism, 1997-1998
-Harry Chapin Media Award, for excellence in impacting hunger and poverty, from World Hunger Year, 1996
-Responsibility in Journalism Award, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, 1992
And here is a list of John O’Sullivan’s HONORS & AWARDS
-NOT an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
-NOT employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
-NO writing credits in Forbes and the National Review;
-NO law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O’Sullivan’s actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
O’Sullivan has written two books:
-Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher’s Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.
– Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
Its up to the readers here who they would rather align themselves with — I have made my choice.
For eco worriers it’s always about credentials (real or imagined), seldom about evidence.
Will,
You are aware that this sub-narrative is about the respective “qualifications” of O’Sullivan and Skolnick, are you not?
Are you fishing for another compliment? I have thanked you many times for providing that “evidence” of a human fingerprint on the climate from those 20+ scientists and the National Academy of Sciences. .Thanks again (but this is the last time).
It’s all about facts and evidence, both of which are in short supply at this blog.
I’m sick of your bullshit.
Couldn’t care less about how great you think someone is or how much you hate them. What have they published? What evidence do they bring to the table?
Will: “Couldn’t care less about how great you think someone is or how much you hate them. What have they published? What evidence do they bring to the table?”
I must say Will, that I couldn’t agree with you more, except for the point that evidence needs credible people analyzing it or anyone to make it worthwhile. otherwise you could have the case of a fake lawyer, for example, would have the same weight of opinion as as an Albert Einstein in the field of relativity. That would be obviously ridiculous. Another example is the case of Goddard criticizing Hansen.
Credibility counts AS WELL as what evidence is put on the table.
But you’re a moron who changes topics as soon as you get painted into a corner then circles back around to repeat the same rubbish over and over again. I’ve been a sceptic probably longer than you’ve been alive and I can’t tell your nonsense apart from AIDS denies, 911 Truthers or Young Earth Creationists. Different bullshit, same methods…