Debating Progressives

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Debating Progressives

  1. Patrick says:

    I wonder if they know that our biosphere only makes up 0.0007% of our entire planet’s volume, and that a simple atmospheric change of 0.01% is simply irrelevant to the rest of the Earth’s volume of 99.9993%. Which controls the Earth’s atmosphere? 99.9993% or the 0.0007%?

    • arn says:

      maybe that’s the secret why all their predictions are failing.
      ((but one must not confuse the volume&mass of the planet
      to be the main driving factor,
      it is for the existence of our atmosphere and to keep gases inside the atmosphere
      but not for the surface temperature.This is mostly based on cosmic rays
      and how they are reflected back into space
      as the heat from the earth core which is reaching our surface is as small and irrellevant as man-made co2 in our atmosphere.)

  2. mat says:

    You should start reading Dilbert from the start (1989) and go forward. You’ll find a lot of relevant strips amonst all the bad puns…
    Trump and the Russians way back in 1990 for example…
    http://dilbert.com/search_results?year=1989

  3. ClimateOtter says:

    I’ve had one ‘progressive’ accuse me of wanting to raid African resources because I want Africans to have a better future visa fossil fuels.

    • Griff says:

      well you haven’t done much towards actually providing any Africans with fossil fuels, or an electrictiy grid…

      • Stewart Pid says:

        Griff you twit …. the African countries are sovereign …. why should we provide them with anything? Plus they are corrupt and would be fine except for the corruption = dysfunctional.

        • Kris J says:

          A big problem in Africa is Muslims killing people. SOOO MUCH suffering and death in Africa is caused by Muslim and Marxist expansion, it’s absolutely sickening.

          We send big hospital ships with U.S. volunteer doctors, which anchor offshore and treat -for free – thousands upon thousands of African Muslim people, who wait in long lines for days to get medical treatment. The oil-rich Muslim nations do NOTHING of the sort

          There’s almost no bigger contrast, anywhere in the world

      • ClimateOtter says:

        How much have you done, griffy-boi? At least I WANT them to advance- the people you believe in, want them to remain in squalor because co2.

  4. Griff says:

    Reminds me of Delingpole on Breitbart with his ‘wind turbines were a Nazi idea’ article

    • arn says:

      1)Progressives do not have the Monopole on Nazi analogies.

      Especially as Nazis pushed so much beloved progressives/bolshewik stuff like Labour day,Free health care,free kindergarten,
      veggie day,Mothers Day etc

      2)
      There is nothing wrong with Nazi- analogies when they are 100% right.

      This is described very well in the German Book “Die Geschichte der Windenergienutzung 1890-1990” by Matthias Heymann
      Ventimotor was the name of this Nazi- company.

      And there is nothing wrong with missusing nazi analogies when this is
      the most standard tool of your opponent who cries Nazi all the time,
      while defending Hitlers most favourite Religion(=islam) by calling everyone Nazi who dares to criticize this fascist,apartheid,pedophile ,mysogenist system.

      3)
      Nazis also built flying saucers-
      that does not mean that all aliens/e.t.’s are Nazis :)
      And this has nothing to do with Conspiracy Theory Tin Foil Hat Crackpots,
      just the fact that Nazis did some experiments with flying machines shaped like a disc-
      you can watch those videos on youtube and even in color.

      • Griff says:

        wind turbines are wrong because the nazis thought of them, eh?

        so rockets and jet engines are wrong too?

        and radar, as they invented some of that?

        and yes, obviously aliens would be bad, if the nazis did invent saucers (they didn’t)

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Excellent logic, Ms Griff. You have just proved that concentration camps are good because Stalin and Hitler supported rocketry.

        • AZ1971 says:

          wind turbines are wrong because the nazis thought of them, eh?

          No, they were wrong because the technology of the day meant far more energy refining the steel and copper used in their construction versus the amount of energy ROI. Today’s technology is different, but still is unsupportive of its energy ROI because of output variability.

    • gator69 says:

      Ms Griff, the Nazi’s were socialists, just like you. Your CAGW cult has killed more people than Hitler, Mao, and Stalin combined.

      • Griff says:

        I don’t think you’d know a socialist if you fell over one.

        Millions of socialists died fighting the Nazis, which is one reason you still have democracy today.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Excellent logic again, Ms Griff. The Blood gangs are good because they fight and kill members of the Crips gangs.

        • Gator69 says:

          Ms Griff, we just decided against an avowed socialist for POTUS.

          It is absurd for someone as ignorant as yourself to question anyone else’s intelligence.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Griff said: “wind turbines are wrong because the nazis thought of them, eh?”

          It is astonishing you actually deduced that from arn’s comments. The author of this thread appreciates you proving him correct. You make it so easy.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        “Your CAGW cult has killed more people than Hitler, Mao, and Stalin combined.”

        For a good cause, gator, for a good cause.

        “If you want to make an omelet, you must be willing to break a few eggs.”

        — Lenin

        Besides, these people will have LEDs from Ms Griff to count their dead. Everything’s gonna be alright.

      • Kris J says:

        Socialism = Gov’t owns or runs the factors of production. Modern translation: the government owns Netflix and you can’t get yours because there’s a shortage

        MARX = socialism based on class envy. The practical result is no individual rights, poverty, shortages of everything, cheapening of life. Gov’t officials drive around in 12 cylinder cars in specially designated lanes. Everyone else drives Fiat knock-offs and has no gas

        NAZI = socialism based on race. The practical results are pretty much the same

    • Brad says:

      You do realize you are perfectly phenocopying the progressive loon in the Dilbert strip right?

  5. Colorado Wellington says:

    Tony asserts that Progressives debate like idiots. Ms Griff promptly arrives to support his assertion.

  6. pmc47025 says:

    “Liberal” could/should be replaced with “Progressive”, but you get the point.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      This time it will be different.

      About a quarter century ago a young, self-described Colorado Commie named Steve Montoya was extolling the virtues of Communism on the radio talk show of Ken Hamblin, “The Black Avenger”.

      Ken told him that Communism failed everywhere it’s been tried. Why did he expect it to work here?

      “We are Americans,” Montoya replied without skipping a beat, “we can do everything better.”

      See, this time we won’t try to implement the kind of Socialism that doesn’t work. That would be wrong. We are Americans! We’ll do the other kind. The National Socialist version.

    • AndyG55 says:

      That PUTRID little web site sure is a CON.

      No mention of the FACT that Arctic sea ice is actuyally ANOMALOUSLY HIGH compared to 90-95% of the last 10,000 years

      You can ALWAYS rely on a far-left scum-bag, DECEITFUL, LYING troll like Jimbo the Exeter toyboy, to keep up the LIES and DIS-INFORMATION

      LIES and DIS-INFORMATION.. The far-left anti-science way.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Andy – I note that you still haven’t answered my question about where you obtained that graph. In case you’ve forgotten:

        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/updated-ice-free-arctic-forecast/#comment-58158

        Q.E.D?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your ignorance astounds even me.

          Go find it yourself, slimy moronic twit.

          You really are SCARED of actual FACTS showing that the Arctic sea ice is really VERY HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene.

          Maybe one of your SCAM-driven Exeter Uni boys can do the research for you, we all know that you are incapable.

          oops. They are not PAID to do that, are they ;-)

          • sunsettommy says:

            I replied to Jimmy with hard evidence that the chart is indeed from the Stein et al paper. He obviously ignored it since it is just a few comments below from his.

            He is here to promote fog.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Perhaps the GISP Temperature data would give you a clue….

          …. since you certainly don’t seem to have even the slightest clue.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And of course , the providence of the graph was pointed out to you before.

          Just keep SLIMING, Jimbo, its all you are good at.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Show us the way through, yellow-back cretin

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Not by you it wasn’t.

            Did it first see the light of day at the amusingly entitled “No Tricks Zone”? If so has it been regurgitated elsewhere?

          • Jim Hunt says:

            My previous comment should have appeared higher up.

            Regarding your colorful map, it reveals the route from Gjoa Haven to Herschel Island entirely free of sea ice and it’s\only August 5th!!

            Q.E.D?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Northabout route .. BLOCKED

          Amundsen route.. BLOCKED

          Larsen route.. NO BLOODY WAY.. Its absolutely blocked

          Seems that there is FAR more ice than 1944.

          Wouldn’t you agree, slime-troll. !!!

          • Griff says:

            There’s already been an icebreaker through…

            which gave detailed ice reports

            Which were nothing like 1944

            I expect it will be open late -the Northern Sea route is 95% there, earlier than 2016.

            what will you say then?

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Griff – Since you seem to have missed the start of the conversation I’d just like to point out that Andy’s comment is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

            The comparison in question is with 1905, but for some strange reason Andy keeps on changing the subject!

          • AndyG55 says:

            The real FACT is that current levels are FAR higher than they have been for some 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.

            The two of you wetting your beds together, about a highly beneficial drop since the extremes of 1979 is quite bizarre.

            Are you married , perhaps?

            As you say griff, nothing like 1944, when Larsen sailed a small, slow, wooden sided boat passed Banks Island.

            A modern ice-breaker with satellite navigation is very different.. wouldn’t you agree.

            And that route is currently blocked.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Andy – The real FACT is that you and the other denizens of the “Deplorable Climate Science Blog” keep on changing the subject.

            At the risk of repeating myself:

            1b) Gjoa eventually departed Gjoa Haven on August 13th 1905.

            1c) Gjoa reached King Point near Herschel Island on September 2nd 1905, but could get no further. She was forced to spend the winter of 1905/06 there.

            2) I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to determine equivalent dates for 2001.

            4) I also leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to determine equivalent dates for 2017.

            Here’s another clue for you:

        • sunsettommy says:

          I answered you, liar! It is right here:

          https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/updated-ice-free-arctic-forecast/#comment-58309

          Read my next THREE comments that shows the chart is indeed in the paper. The last one a direct link.

          • gator69 says:

            Cowardly lying Genocide Jim has never answered my question.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Tommy – Your name isn’t Andy is it? Quoting from your own comments:

            For the record, I “chopped” it.

            The “20th century”, “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” annotations were added.

            So 3/4 of the figure in the paper ended up on the cutting room floor, as well as the relevant legend which reads:

            PIP25 records (solid line: based on brassicasterol; stippled line: based on dinosterol

            Q.E.D?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Different graph, bozo.

            The fact that you don’t know the providence of this graph shows what a monumental CON your pathetic LYING CON/SCAM web iste is.

            Didn’t your Exeter boyfriends feed you any actual facts?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Coincides rather well with GISP data , wouldn’t you agree, slimo. !

          • AndyG55 says:

            So funny watch the PATHETIC Jimbo, troll, trying to ignore actual data that shows just how much sea ice there currently is compared to the rest of the Holocene.

            You and griff really have to get a bed together.. it would be saturated in minutes.

          • sunsettommy says:

            This is what you wrote the very first time you asked about the chart Andy posted”

            “Jim Hunt says:
            August 2, 2017 at 9:26 pm

            AndyG – Intriguingly your diagram is nowhere to be seen in Stein et al. 2017.

            Where did you find it?”

            YOU stated it wasn’t found at all in the paper.

            You say,

            “DIAGRAM IS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN IN STEIN ET AL.”

            STRIKE ONE.

            After I replied saying it has Stein Et Al right there on the chart, you then wrote this,

            “Jim Hunt says:
            August 3, 2017 at 11:45 am

            Tommy – I’ve read Stein et al.

            Evidently you have not!”

            You say again that you didn’t see the chart,which is labeled Stein Et All at bottom right corner.

            LOL

            Then I proceeded to post what Kenneth said about the chart,since another person thought he made it up. He said, and I quote:

            “For the record, I “chopped” it from the table because the other elements from the same table were not going to be recognizable to the casual viewer as having anything to do with sea ice. The more convoluted and complicated a graph is, the less likely people will understand it or try to decipher it. There is nothing “tricky” about specifically selecting a sea ice graph from a table that includes depictions of brassicasterol, as few people would find any relevance to sea ice.

            And the reason I compressed it (which in no way changes what it depicts) is because this particular format (WordPress) does not support wide images, as the wider it is the smaller the font and the harder it is to read. I don’t find anything sinister about aiding user-friendliness, making images easier for viewers to read. Same with vertical/sideways graphs versus horizontal. No one looks at a graph of sea ice or temperature from a sideways angle. The only reason it was sideways in the paper is because the authors were trying to squeeze in as many images as they could into the existing space.:

            You are scum, Jim, since you didn’t quote Kenneth honestly. He explains that he added the words at the far end of the chart,that he made it Horizontal,that he had to resize it to fit with WordPress image limitations,but the chart itself is real and located on page 9 of the paper.

            STRIKE TWO.

            Kenneth goes on to state that the ABSTRACT describes what the chart show quite clearly.

            Then I posted a direct link to the chart itself. It is clear Kenneth told the truth from the start, that he said it was on page 9 was the truth,that he truthfully explains the additions he made to the chart. The additions and making it horizontal didn’t change the data that built the chart itself which was created by Dr. Stein.

            After all this,you come back with bullcrap,

            “For the record, I “chopped” it.

            The “20th century”, “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” annotations were added.

            So 3/4 of the figure in the paper ended up on the cutting room floor, as well as the relevant legend which reads:

            PIP25 records (solid line: based on brassicasterol; stippled line: based on dinosterol

            Q.E.D?”

            These two from Wikipedia:

            “Brassicasterol (24-methyl cholest-5,22-dien-3β-ol) is a 28-carbon sterol synthesised by several unicellular algae (phytoplankton) and some terrestrial plants, e.g., oilseed rape. This compound has frequently been used as a biomarker for the presence of (marine) algal matter in the environment.”

            and,

            “Dinosterol is a type of steroid produced by several genera of dinoflagellates. It is a 4α-methyl sterol (4α,23,24-trimethyl-5α-cholest-22E-en-3β-ol) rarely found in other classes of protists.[1]

            This sterol and others have been considered as class-specific, being biomarkers for dinoflagellates, although dinosterol is produced in minor amounts by a small number of other phytoplankton, such as the marine diatom Navicula speciosa.[2] and Prymnesiophytes of the genus Pavlova.[3]”

            They are BIOMARKERS that were involved in creating proxy data for the chart. The charts data statement itself was never altered from what Dr. Stein created.

            It is clear you are full of shit.

            It is clear you are pure scum,since you can’t admit the screaming obvious that the chart does exist and on page 9 of the paper. That you didn’t see it after allegedly reading the paper,then after you were shown the direct link to the chart,you wrote that stupid deflection. Still even now, you seem to deny it exist.

            STRIKE THREE.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Tommy – Thank you for confirming once again that the graph Andy originally posted makes no mention of “biomarkers” or “proxy data”.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jim,

            thank you for stopping your hilarious, “I can’t see the chart” Bullcrap.

            Meanwhile you keep trying your fogging comments because you don’t want people to notice that Dr. Stein completely left of AGW and CO2 out of his paper. He was talking about the Sun changes influencing the Arctic region,which warmist loons like you pointedly try to ignore.

            That it was an attempt to consider SOLAR effect on the Ice cover in the North,as Kenneth started his post with:

            Kenneth writes,

            “In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.
            In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.
            The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago.
            Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.”

            Then he provide a quote from the paper,

            Stein 2017

            “The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.

            The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia. The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.

            The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

            The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.”

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#comment-1179992

            Your Biomarkers whine you present is misleading and dishonest, because the chart he presented which are in part based on the proxy data was never changed.

            It is part of your desperate deflection to steer people away from Solar effects on the ice cap and the Ocean circulation patterns.

            Once again, I quote this from Kenneth who was replying to another warmist loon,

            “Kenneth Richard 6. March 2017 at 1:23 AM | Permalink

            I have no idea why it couldn’t be recognized in the first place since its colors and description were visibly clear in the paper. It’s not as if there are dozens of tri-hue blue graphs with “sea ice cover” on them from the paper, and one had to wade through them all to find it.

            For the record, I “chopped” it from the table because the other elements from the same table were not going to be recognizable to the casual viewer as having anything to do with sea ice. The more convoluted and complicated a graph is, the less likely people will understand it or try to decipher it. There is nothing “tricky” about specifically selecting a sea ice graph from a table that includes depictions of brassicasterol, as few people would find any relevance to sea ice.

            And the reason I compressed it (which in no way changes what it depicts) is because this particular format (WordPress) does not support wide images, as the wider it is the smaller the font and the harder it is to read. I don’t find anything sinister about aiding user-friendliness, making images easier for viewers to read. Same with vertical/sideways graphs versus horizontal. No one looks at a graph of sea ice or temperature from a sideways angle. The only reason it was sideways in the paper is because the authors were trying to squeeze in as many images as they could into the existing space.

            As for your very odd contention that this graph created by the authors “misrepresents” what the authors themselves were “saying in the first place”, perhaps you didn’t read the abstract of the paper itself:

            The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.

            What the abstract says is exactly what this graph actually depicts. In other words, it is probably the most cogent graph from the entire paper. If you think otherwise, please illuminate us with what graph you think should be used as representative from the paper.

            It is my suspicion that the only reason you are daftly attempting to criticize what has been done here is that you don’t like what you see. You don’t like to think that Arctic sea ice is more extensive now than it has been for nearly the entire Holocene. You don’t like to think that scientists attribute sea ice trend variations to solar forcing, as these conclusions undermine the narrative that humans cause sea ice to rise up and down. So, instead of offering something substantive, you whine that the graph’s X axis has been compressed and been re-positioned horizontally for easier viewing. You whine about the “lables” [sic] for the 20C, MWP, and LIA.

            I would also surmise that you were being dishonest when you wrote that you “can’t find” the graph in the paper you claimed to have downloaded, as you were disingenuously trying to suggest that this graph wasn’t even in the paper when it is very prominent and easy to see with even a cursory skimming.

            It does not appear that your tactic has worked here, Andy1. Perhaps you can offer criticism that is a little more substantive than “you had chopped the scale out of another table” next time.”

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#comment-1179992

            The warmist look Andy1 said this earlier,

            “Andy1 4. March 2017 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

            Thanks Richard,

            I’d already downloaded the PDF but as I saw nothing in it that looked like

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17-768×496.jpg

            I wondered if we were talking about the same thing.

            Where did that graph come from when it is not in the actual paper?

            Andy”

            Meanwhile that same chart leaps out at you on page 9:

            https://images.readcube-cdn.com/prerendered/5e2c0c061617232eb19db9f2d33a31da48223949291b7c52e42642b64193912d/9.jpg

            Ha ha ha

            You guys are full of crap.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Of course the graph was changed Tommy. You’ve admitted as much.

            It was chopped, scaled and rotated. All references to proxy data were removed and captions added instead that made no mention of the proxy data.

  7. Andy DC says:

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

    Arctic Sea Ice is almost exactly at the last ten year average, so what is the big deal about that? No downtrend at all for 10 years. That does not signal a death spiral or ice free Arctic at all. There was an uptrend from 1940 to 1979, then a downtrend from 1979 to 2007. Now it has been flat for ten years. What great conclusions can any reasonable person derive from those facts? Absolutely none whatsoever!

    • Griff says:

      “The linear rate of decline for July 2017 was 72,500 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year, or 7.4 percent per decade.”

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/08/Figure3.png

      • gator69 says:

        Ms Griff hates poor brown people, but loves the cherry pick of 1979 as a start date in order to fool fools into thinking there is a reason to starve 21,000 innocent humans again today.

      • Andy DC says:

        Griff,

        You refuse to listen to a word that I, AndyG55, Tony and others have well documented on this site.

        I don’t think any of us are denying that there has been a drop of sea ice since 1979. What we are saying and what you cannot refute is that 1979 was an extreme outlier year, with probably the most sea ice since the Little Ice Age. If you start your chart in any number of years, 1971, 1960, 1940, 2007, etc., it would show very little decrease from then until present. You would see a chart with seemingly random ups and downs, or perhaps cycles, but it would absolutely not show a significant downtrend.

        I am trying to be civil and appeal to whatever reason you possess, but if you just keep showing the same old charts over and over on this site, you are totally wasting your time and whatever abuse you receive is well deserved.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Andy,

          Whereas you, AndyG55, Tony and others on this site refuse to listen to a word I say!

          I am trying to be civil and appeal to whatever reason you possess. How about a picture instead?

          • gator69 says:

            Anomalies are BS.

            Using “anomalies” to study an insignificant blip of time on Earth, and using this incredibly small set of numbers to understand an almost incomprehensible reality, is simply nonsense.

            a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
            1. -something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

            1- There is no such thing as “normal” in climate or weather.

            2- What exactly am I supposed to expect in the future, based upon the range of possibilities we see in the geologic record? Are the changes we see happening “extreme” in any way?

            3- No.

            Anomalies are created by the definers of “normal”.

            Why do you hate poor brown people Genocide Jim?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Dropping down from the EXTREME of the late 1970’s a tiny way towards more “normal” Arctic sea ice levels.

            Still WAY more than during the MWP.

            And anything before 199 is a lie , because satellite data was available n ad shows the graph to be WRONG.

            ie you are LYING yet again, Jimbo.. Your stock in trade.

        • AndyG55 says:

          DOE., you know, actual measurements….

          shows low in the late 1940, 195o

      • sunsettommy says:

        Griff,

        you ignored the 10 year stable comment made by Andy dc completely. There is NO MORE DECLINE over the last 10 years!

        You get it yet?

    • AndyG55 says:

      MASSIVE amounts of sea ice left. Not going to be ice free thios year, that is for sure.

      Did you know that the current extent is WAY more than 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.

      Or are you, as always, WILFULLY IGNORANT.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Which line is brassicasterol and which one is dinosterol?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Matches well to GISP temperatures , doesn’t it Jimbo

          I suggest you go and do your own research instead of relying on the Arctic bed-wetters at Exeter.

          I suspect that you know that there are many papers showing that the Arctic was sea free from much of the first 3/4 of the Holocene, and are just pretending to be absolutely IGNORANT about such FACTS, in your desperate plea for attention.

          • sunsettommy says:

            I posted several papers and also commentary from DOCTOR Meier, the long time Arctic researcher, who stated that yes it has had long periods of time of little to no Arctic ice in the summer.

            Jim is playing his little games that got him banned at WUWT and other blogs for his continuous attempts to derail or fog up the thread,with blatant misleading comments that gets addressed for what they are. He simply can’t admit that the Chart is still representative of what Dr. Stein thinks is what happened in the region during the Holocene,as he states in his paper,from the Abstract:

            “The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

            The Abstract support the chart quite well.

        • sunsettommy says:

          See what Jim is doing?

          He wants to play games here since he wants to talk about the two BIOMARKERS,since he doesn’t like the solid blue line.

          Again here is the ABSTRACT from the paper Jim never points to:

          “The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

          LINK to the Abstract:

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2929/abstract

          It is clear that Jim is here to create more fog, since he did similar complaint that an Andy1 did at NTZ, Kenneth replies to Andy1,

          “It is my suspicion that the only reason you are daftly attempting to criticize what has been done here is that you don’t like what you see. You don’t like to think that Arctic sea ice is more extensive now than it has been for nearly the entire Holocene. You don’t like to think that scientists attribute sea ice trend variations to solar forcing, as these conclusions undermine the narrative that humans cause sea ice to rise up and down. So, instead of offering something substantive, you whine that the graph’s X axis has been compressed and been re-positioned horizontally for easier viewing. You whine about the “lables” [sic] for the 20C, MWP, and LIA.

          I would also surmise that you were being dishonest when you wrote that you “can’t find” the graph in the paper you claimed to have downloaded, as you were disingenuously trying to suggest that this graph wasn’t even in the paper when it is very prominent and easy to see with even a cursory skimming.

          It does not appear that your tactic has worked here, Andy1. Perhaps you can offer criticism that is a little more substantive than “you had chopped the scale out of another table” next time.”

          http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#comment-1179992

          Andy1,like Jim has selective blindness about the chart which is very easy to notice:

          Here it is again located at page 9 of the Stein Et Al paper:

          https://images.readcube-cdn.com/prerendered/5e2c0c061617232eb19db9f2d33a31da48223949291b7c52e42642b64193912d/9.jpg

          How could not see it,Jim?

  8. gator69 says:

    What part of starving 21,000 innocent humans to death daily do you not get?

    These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

    The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

    And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

  9. AndyG55 says:

    NSIDC last 10 years

  10. AndyG55 says:

    MASIE last 10 years…

  11. AndyG55 says:

    Unfortunately, the highly beneficial drop from the EXTREMES of he late 1970s seems to have stalled.

    AMO is turning, Sun is having a snooze.

    No wonder the Arctic sea-ice bed-wetters are so active… probably their last chance for their chicken-little squawking, while ignoring just how much sea ice there still is up there.

  12. RAH says:

    Jimmy boy and Griff really do need to go crawl back in their holes:

    Polar Stability: Antarctic Cold Deepens, Arctic Refuses To Melt Faster In June/July 2017
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/04/polar-stability-antarctic-cold-deepens-arctic-refuses-to-melt-faster-in-junejuly-2017/#sthash.d1thlxxB.dpbs

    • AndyG55 says:

      Central Arctic is hardly melting at all.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Darn its a pity.

        The benefits from at least a short period of navigable ocean would be immense, especially if they could get more than a couple of weeks through the NWP.

        The Russians have the right idea.. MASSIVE new Ice breakers, nuclear powered that actually melt the ice. But the cost must be immense.

        That is how DESPERATE they are to get some navigable waters up there.

        Unfortunately, the drop from the extremes of the late 1970’s seems to have stalled., and with the AMO turning , and a sleepy sun, we will most probably start to see the Arctic sea ice extent start climbing back up. That’s just bad luck for the people living up there.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The ONLY good thing about increasing sea ice would be that it would stop the chicken-little squawking of the child-minded, anti-human Arctic sea ice bed-wetters, at least for a short while, …

          … until they decided that CO2 was causing the increase. ;-)

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Gotta MASIE CAB graph for 1905 Andy?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yawn,

          You really are a sick piece of human excrement, Jimbo

          You KNOW that Arctic sea ice is higher than it has been for all but the LIA and the short period of highly beneficial warming out of that bleak period.

          You KNOW that the natural drop in Arctic sea ice is nothing but BENEFICIAL to the people living up there….

          You KNOW that opening up of sea channels that used to be open before the LIA would be an absolute boon for commerce and travel.

          Whatever anti-human agenda you are trying to push, it sure is SICK and AMORAL.

  13. RAH says:

    But there is always a bright side for the Alarmists chicken little types. It’s looking ever more probable that the 4,300+ day hiatus from major hurricanes striking the shores of the lower 48 is going to end this season.

  14. sunsettommy says:

    Jim Hunt drives thread traffic he is in,but doesn’t post honestly or tries to mislead with partial evidence. He has a bad habit of leaving out or IGNORING inconvenient data or information,since he has a warmist ideological viewpoint he must promote,be dammed if anything credible supports his narrative.

    He ignores credible replies to maintain his fogging comments to help sow confusion. He knows what he is doing as he is a smart man who is driven by a warmist ideology that causes him to look through a narrow keyhole to maintain his AGW religion.

    He isn’t worth the trouble posting here as he will never debate honestly and has made whopping lies before.

    Why is he still here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.