The author said just the right things to slip this one past Guardian editors.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
The “threshold to trigger”….
I love the idea that you could have 3-4 months of open water in the dark at the poles and it wouldn’t freze.
Maybe it would become supercooled?
Then some blue ice from a passing airliner could cause millions of Manhattans to catastrophically freeze…..
MUST READ: Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? UPDATED
The question was: Where did this graph come from? The answer is from the following SPPI source…….It’s worth a repeat as it holds vital clues in the fight against the madness of “Man Made Climate Change”, in short the reduction of weather surface stations (6000 to 1500) has meant that there is now an increase in world temperature, not due to the world becoming warmer with “Man Made Climate Change” but due to “Man Made Deception”!
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6858
The odd thing about polar bears, they are a short term resident, having only been around for the 220,000 years or so. And they were derived from brown bears, which seems to move north following ‘easy food’ harvested easy when they changed to white to hide from the seals.
Everything that is, hasn’t always been.
Steve can we all assume that you didn’t actually read the article or looked at the research it was based on – or was it that you didn’t comprehend it?
Who do you think has backed down from which position?
The Arctic is doomed.
Isn’t that what the science has been saying for the past 30 years or more if GHG’s continue to rise? This reports says exactly the same but concludes that severe emission cuts (like that is ever going to happen) may still avoid the worst of it.
So to repeat my unanswered questions;
Who do you think has backed down from which position?
LAZ:
You missed what was claimed.
The article conflicts with previous studies that predict a TIPPING point will be reached.
The article does falsely claim the Arctic is doing something that has not happened in the Arctic Circle before. And the article does falsely claim we should be concerned for a genetically manipulated freak of nature. ( Polar bears are brown bears with white fur) Due to inbreeding they are weaker than others of their species.
The Polar bears might face human induced problems in their habitat but ACC is not one of those problems so the entire article is BS CLB hype!
“The article conflicts with previous studies that predict a TIPPING point will be reached.”
And it may be right but so what? Did you expect all scientific research to always reach the exact same conclusion? Do you more readily accept this research over all the other because it suits your bias or do you accept it with all the others hoping that it’s results are confirmed and then support the huge emission cuts it claims are required?
Apparantly the standard is a little higher when the conclusion is not that the world is going to end.
Did you expect all scientific research to always reach the exact same conclusion?
Is the general consensus of AGW not that all the other science is flawed/paid for by big oil/ or a US government conspiracy.
Could we please just get some actual science done
LAZ:
You asked a question and I provided you with an answer which was obvious to anyone who has minimal reading skills.
Answers to the next group of questions:
IDGAF!
NO!
I do not accept it because it is just more Chicken Little Bull Excrement. I guess you also failed to read that portion of my prior reply.
“You asked a question and I provided you with an answer which was obvious to anyone who has minimal reading skills.”
I would think that someone who has minimal reading skills (rubbish ad Hom BTW) would have managed an answer to the questions I asked.
So since you seem to be Steve’s mouth piece at the moment (do you wrestle together? Tag team perhaps?) would you like another go?
Who do you think has backed down from which position?
Lazarus gets distracted by Steve, the BBC, the British Antarctic Survey and the Scott Polar Research Institute embrace denialism…
tsk tsk
No idea what you are on about.