Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[grmorton]

I've tried to disentangle the messed up quotes, but may not have succeeded.



I was wrong about the last few pixels. I was not wrong about the vast majority of the data.

Irrelevant, Roy. I did not assert that the entire section for months on end was about normal. I said it was above normal. It is. You claimed I was lying. Now that you know I am not lying I am going to ask you a question.

Are you lying about my lying? After all you know that I didn't say what you claim I said, you also know that I was right about the ice extent being above normal. Looks to me like you are digging your hole deeper.

As for the so-called "lack of looking at the actual data", I did look at the data. I saw a line showing ice extent for 2010 that was below the long-term average, with the last month's data being slightly below that average. I posted it. I did not notice that there were three or four pixels where the lines had crossed over because I didn't look that closely - mainly because you had claimed that "Arctic Ice extent is above normal" and I would expect such a claim to be justified by a clear separation of the data, not by an insignificant difference that can only be seen by examination of individual pixels.

And I again repeat. Science is found in the details. Cursory glances cause us all to make the wrong decisions.

You said I was lying about this particular piece of data, I wasn't yet you won't withdraw the obviously wrong assertion you made. To all except Tiggy of course, but reason seems not to be his forte.


It didn't help that you couched your request in terms of the line itself rather than the very last few points of it - twice - a wording that I would never agree to because it creates a totally false impression.

I know what you said in your post. Detaching my first sentence from the rest of its paragraph, and pretending that it is an isolated comment on your original sentence rather than part of an extended argument about your general misuse of data, is fraudulent.

You didn't detach it in the note you wrote. And on pages 4 and 5 of this thread, when you pointed out that I was wrong, I admited it. If I admitted that I was wrong, how can THAT be called lying, Roy? We all make mistakes. Scientists, true scientists call the data, and when they are wrong, they withdraw--as I did. Clearly you can't do so or you would have withdrawn your lying charge.

When called on an error, admitting that one made an error is CAN NOT be evidence that one is lying. Liars don't admit the error. Yet now you try to broaden this discussion, claiming that I am lying in other unspecified examples. That is McCarthyism at its best Roy. Congratulations, McCarthyite

I did not say that you made any claim about the 2007-2009 data. I simply stated what you should know from examining the data you provided. Your attempt to remove my words from their context in a way that makes it look as if I was responding to a specific claim of yours is quote-mining.

I responded to what I understood you to write. You still haven't had the grace to simply acknowledge that you were wrong to say I was lying.

No. I don't know who you are referring to.

So what? Arctic ice melting isn't a race. It doesn't have a specific finish line. There is no moment at which one can measure the ice extent and say 'only this one datum counts'. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Clearly you seem not to understand when a curve is ABOVE another curve. It doesn't have to be there for months and months to be above. And while climate isn't a race, it really matters not if the ice extent has only been above the norm for 2 femtosectonds, it is still ABOVE THE NORM. No amount of weaseling on your part will make it be below the curve.

No. You also claimed that this particular piece of data showed that the Arctic ice isn't melting.

I don't actually beleive I said anything about melting. I said the arctic ice was above normal and that the polar bears were safe. Once again, you fail to actually represent what I said correctly.

Ice coverage is expected to fluctuate due to a host of varying factors, and over the long term it is expected that there will be periods when coverage is comparitively great and other periods when it is comparitively low. Pointing as you did to one of the fluctuations while ignoring the vast majority of the data, and claiming that it is somehow representative of the entire data set, is lying about the data.

Irrelevant to your scurrilous charge

If you look back at my original post, you'll note that I did not say that you were lying about a particular datum, but that you were lying in the way that you treated the data generally - hence my footnote about outliers/sample sizes/best-fit lines. That was the justification I provided for my charge, and everything you have said since then serves to reinforce it.

I don't buy that. The post you were replying to was the post that triggered your claim of lying. Thus you must have thought I was lying or you wouldn't have replied. Clearly you did think I was lying about it, now you just want to generalize to unnamed unspecified events in order to weasel out of your erroneous claim.

If you know how to read charts you know that the 2010 data is not above normal. 4 or 5 days of 2010 may be above normal, but there are more than 100 days which haven't been. If your claim is that 2010 is above normal (and I don't think it is - i now think you're simply claiming that the last few days have been above normal) - then your claim is flatly false.

Since I didn't say a length of time and since the latest values ARE above the normal, your claim is risable.

That's right Glen, you couldn't have said that at any other time in the past three years.

And dingaling, I didn't say it was above normal anytime in the past 3 years! I stated it AFTER the curve went above normal.

You can say it now, because the current ice extent has (unless it's an artefact of the line drawing process used in generating the graphs) exceeded the average ice extent for 1979-2006 (but not apparently exceeded the average ice extent for 1979-2000 (thatnks Tiggy)) by a very small amount that can only be detected by exceedingly close examination.

Then I am right and thus can't be lying. What illogic you present all because you can't seem to admit that you made a mistake.

[quote]

You couldn't have said it last week. You couldn't have said it at any time in the past three years. But today you can say it - so you do. That's ok.

WHAT???? "That's OK?" Not according to you, you claimed I was lying about the data!!! Are you having comprehensional problems, Roy?

What isn't ok is that you then go on to suggest that this one piece of data - this one week period out of three and a third years that represents less than 1% of the data from your source - indicates that Arctic ice is not melting. You take this minuscule fraction of the data which supports your case and ignore the 99%+ of data that does not, and you focus on this one point as if this piece of data is important and all the rest can be ignored.

Please show me where I said the arctic ice isn't melting in the post that started this scrap? I posted a post to my blog on CO2 isn't melting the arctic, but I acknowledged in that post that the arctic ice was shrinking. Now it isn't. What in the H is wrong with you Roy?

THAT is cherry-picking. It is misleading.

Since I didn't say what you claim, you now misrepresent what I have actually said.

It is statistically indefensible. It is unacceptable in serious research. And when it is done by some-one who understands statistics, by some-one who has a scientific background, by some-one who is used to dealing with graphs and other technical data, by some-one who really ought to know better, it is lying about the data.

What a hoot. Sour grapes that the ice extent is now above normal. This is the problem with you AGW guys. You think everything must fit into your scary story. If it doesn't or if someone points out a chink in your armour you all immediately claim they are lying. It is as if you all think your excrement exuded doesn't stink.

I never made any claim to the statistical probability that it would remain above normal, nor did I say anything about statistics. This is merely another one of your obfuscations. Please pay attention to the post I noted that the ice extent now exceeded the 1979-2006 normal. Do you see the word 'melting'? probability? anything other than an observation? Frankly the polar bears are safe even if the arctic is melting. You probably haven't kept up but mitochondria from polar bears show that they made it through the last interglacial which was warmer than we are now.

Thus the arctic ice has nothing to do with their survival.

Nor is this an isolated instance. You did the same thing when you insisted on examining the NOAA data from 1998 onwards when older data was available. You did the same thing when you cited North American continental temperatures for a couple of months last year and ignored temperatures elsewhen and elsewhere. There are probably other examples, but I've already spent 3 hours too many on this.

In 3 hours all you could find are 1, an example I admitted my error on and another one that you fail to cite where I did it? This is Mcarthyism, charge someone with something unspecified and let the big lie take over the crowd. It is Tiggy's approach.

I'm not squirming, Glen, just asking for additional evidence to be brought before the court.

When all I said was that the arctic ice extent was above normal, and that is and was my only claim, how in the hell can you say you want more evidence, when you have admitted the evidence I presented for that simple claim????

I've made my case. Do what you will. But I hope you will read this and understand why I made the charge I did, and hopefully remember that oters have made the exact same point, and perhaps realise that if I'm being harsh on you it's because nothing else has succeeded.

Roy

No, I don't see why you did it. You were clearly wrong and have failed to admit it. I will ask the mods to look at this. This is the very first time I have ever called in the mods. It makes me feel dirty but you make me mad with your unsubstantiated charge that I lied about the fact you were responding to and now claim I lied in places you can't cite. You disgust me.


One other thing. You may wonder why I changed from fighting YEC to this. When I fought YEC, I was fighting to try to change my religion. Many atheists and agnostics fight YECs because they think YECs are dangerous to scientific knowledge. I think they are incredibly harmless compared with the McCarthyistic tactics of the AGW crowd, the damage that the AGW crowd will do both to my freedom and to the economy. I can't sit by while you all distort science in a political cause. I will gladly fight alongside anyone who wants to stop this perversion of science called global warming. You all are the real danger to science. By not collecting data correctly and pushing a statist agenda as an outgrowth of AGW, science loses credibility.

And scientists lose credibility when they can't admit that they are wrong when they are flatly shown to be wrong.

[Roy]

This will be quick since I don't have as much time today.

Irrelevant, Roy. I did not assert that the entire section for months on end was about normal. I said it was above normal. It is. You claimed I was lying. Now that you know I am not lying I am going to ask you a question.

Are you lying about my lying?

No. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that you have cherry-picked a single datum point that just barely supports your argument to flourish at everyone while ignoring the vast majority of data that doesn't support your argument.

And I again repeat. Science is found in the details. Cursory glances cause us all to make the wrong decisions.

Science is not done by ignoring 99+% of the data in favour of the one datum you like. But that is what you are doing.

You said I was lying about this particular piece of data, ...

No I didn't, I was talking about your treatment of the data generalIy, as the footnote in my original post makes clear.

You didn't detach it in the note you wrote.

That makes no sense. I wrote a paragraph detailing information that you must have gleaned from your source, and you separated the first section of that paragraph from the rest and treated it as a direct reply to one of your previous comments to which it was not a response.

And on pages 4 and 5 of this thread, when you pointed out that I was wrong, I admited it. If I admitted that I was wrong, how can THAT be called lying, Roy?

First, i didn't say that you were lying about the detail you admitted being wrong about. Your pretence that I did is a classic example of a straw-man argument.
Second, if you had been lying (and I don't think you were),* why would it suddenly not become a lie if you were exposed and retracted it?

We all make mistakes. Scientists, true scientists call the data, and when they are wrong, they withdraw--as I did. Clearly you can't do so or you would have withdrawn your lying charge.

I'll withdraw my charge if and when you understand what the charge actually is and stop committing the offence. There is no sign yet of you doing either.

When called on an error, admitting that one made an error is CAN NOT be evidence that one is lying. Liars don't admit the error. Yet now you try to broaden this discussion, claiming that I am lying in other unspecified examples....

I cited two specific examples, both of which were within the scope of my original charge.

I responded to what I understood you to write. You still haven't had the grace to simply acknowledge that you were wrong to say I was lying.

You have yet to demonstrate that I am wrong. Sure, i missed that a small fraction of the line in your graph was maginally above the average line rather than on it. I was wrong about that. But it doesn't actually matter whether it was slightly above, slightly below or exactly the same since the issue is not about the exact value of that particular datum but that you focussed on that one datum to the exclusion of all the rest.

Clearly you seem not to understand when a curve is ABOVE another curve. It doesn't have to be there for months and months to be above. And while climate isn't a race, it really matters not if the ice extent has only been above the norm for 2 femtosectonds, it is still ABOVE THE NORM. No amount of weaseling on your part will make it be below the curve.

And no amount of cherry-picking on your part will change the fact that ice extent was BELOW THE NORM for 90+% of this year.

I don't actually beleive I said anything about melting. I said the arctic ice was above normal and that the polar bears were safe. Once again, you fail to actually represent what I said correctly.

Emphasis mine: "Arctic Ice extent is above normal--the Arctic isn't melting and the polar bears are safe"

Ice coverage is expected to fluctuate due to a host of varying factors, and over the long term it is expected that there will be periods when coverage is comparitively great and other periods when it is comparitively low. Pointing as you did to one of the fluctuations while ignoring the vast majority of the data, and claiming that it is somehow representative of the entire data set, is lying about the data.

Irrelevant to your scurrilous charge

No, Glen, that is, and always was, the basis for my charge.

I never said you were lying about a few data points. I said you were abusing sample sizes and outliers - and that is exactly what you are doing.

I don't buy that.

I am rapidly ceasing to care. I've made my case.

The post you were replying to was the post that triggered your claim of lying.

Yes, it was. It triggered my claim because it was a particularly egregious example of what you have been doing for some time.

Since I didn't say a length of time and since the latest values ARE above the normal, your claim is risable.

You did state a length of time - you stated 2010. Here are your words again:

"My claim was that 2010 was above normal."

And dingaling, I didn't say it was above normal anytime in the past 3 years! I stated it AFTER the curve went above normal.

And how many times in the previous three years did you mention that the curve was below normal and follow it up with a comment that the Arctic might be melting?

You're reporting data sets when they temporarily support you and ignoring the same data sets for the rest of the time when they don't.

WHAT???? "That's OK?" Not according to you, you claimed I was lying about the data!!! Are you having comprehensional problems, Roy?

No, I comprehend real well. It's you that are failing to check what has actually been said. Like here, for example:

Please show me where I said the arctic ice isn't melting in the post that started this scrap?

Emphasis mine: "Arctic Ice extent is above normal--the Arctic isn't melting and the polar bears are safe"

What in the H is wrong with you Glen?

What a hoot. Sour grapes that the ice extent is now above normal. This is the problem with you AGW guys.

Yeah, right. Because I call you out on abusing data and lying with statistics I suddenly become an AGW guy despite the fact that I have never (AFAICR) expressed any opinion one way or the other on AGW on this forum. Yet you try to paint me as a McCarthyite.

I never made any claim to the statistical probability that it would remain above normal, nor did I say anything about statistics. This is merely another one of your obfuscations. Please pay attention to the post I noted that the ice extent now exceeded the 1979-2006 normal. Do you see the word 'melting'?

Yes, Glen, I see the word 'melting'. It's still there. It isn't going to go away no matter how often say it's absent.

That you have now managed to claim that it wasn't there three times without ever actually going back to check suggests that you have very little interest in ensuring you correctly represent anything that has been said.

In 3 hours all you could find are 1, an example I admitted my error on and another one that you fail to cite where I did it?

I didn't say I spent 3 hours searching, did I Glen? I said I'd spent 3 hours too many on writing the post. It takes time to go back and check meanings and reconstruct threads of argument and make sure I'm not missing or misunderstanding anything - time which you apparently can't be bothered to spend.

This is Mcarthyism, charge someone with something unspecified and let the big lie take over the crowd. It is Tiggy's approach.

Again with the "unspecified", despite me having actually included specific examples.

No, I don't see why you did it. You were clearly wrong and have failed to admit it. I will ask the mods to look at this. This is the very first time I have ever called in the mods. It makes me feel dirty but you make me mad with your unsubstantiated charge that I lied about the fact you were responding to and now claim I lied in places you can't cite. You disgust me.

Oh, well. I tried. Feel free to carry on abusing statistics for your cause. You're doing much more harm than good, and I won't try to help you again.

I can't sit by while you all distort science in a political cause.

Funny, that's exactly how I feel too.

I will gladly fight alongside anyone who wants to stop this perversion of science called global warming.

Even if climate change is actually happening? And will you gladly fight alongside some-one who wants to stop the perversion of science (and statistics) by proponents of either side? It seems not.

And scientists lose credibility when they can't admit that they are wrong when they are flatly shown to be wrong.

They lose credibility equally fast for abusing statistics to make unsupportable claims - and your credibility on climate change has now gone.

Best wishes,

Roy

*I'm trying to write this carefully since you don't seem to be trying to comprehend my points at all, and may well take this as another accusation despite it obviously not being one.

[Roy]

I'd say there are three main points of dispute: (i) is the climate changing, (ii) is it changing more rapidly than it has done in the past, (iii) are the changes the result of human activities.

I'm not even sure (i) is in dispute by anyone. But I would agree that 2 & 3 are in debate.

Glenn is disputing #1 furiously right here. I think #2 is going to be very difficult to determine, but if it turns out to be the case then #3 is highly likely.

Ummm.... yes? Not sure what's the point of the statement there. Like I say over and over, thermometers go in only two directions. So the global temperature average is either going up or it's going down.

...or staying the same or oscillating.

Roy

[Roy]

Comments on today's posts:

1. Cherry picking by critics is surely permissible. Isn't it one way to advance science--to point out possible problems that a theory may have? Or, a theory may need refinement to deal with troublesome data--including cherries.

Agreed - but that isn't what Glenn is doing. There's a difference between focussing on specific details that are problematic (you're version of cherry-picking) and abusing statistics to produce false conclusions (Glenn's efforts).

Roy should be looking more to defending the AGW hypothesis directly and explicitly.

Why should I defend a hypothesis that I have never championed?

Roy

[Challenger Grim]

Glenn is disputing #1 furiously right here. I think #2 is going to be very difficult to determine, but if it turns out to be the case then #3 is highly likely.

I'll let Glenn speak for himself, but I was reading his points that the change wasn't as severe as recorded, not that it wasn't happening at all. (I could be mistaken)

And I must disagree on your 2nd sentence. If #2 is happening then it makes #3 more likely but not highly likely. Otherwise, aren't you then using the gambler's fallacy yourself? Using past performance to predict future outcomes? If climate is truly chaotic and random, then changes more rapid than before might occur "just because" among a host of other reasons.

...or staying the same or oscillating.

If climate was staying the same, I think we have far greater concerns.

And how is "oscillating" any different from what I said? You should slow down and read more carefully my point.

[Roy]

And I must disagree on your 2nd sentence. If #2 is happening then it makes #3 more likely but not highly likely. Otherwise, aren't you then using the gambler's fallacy yourself? Using past performance to predict future outcomes? If climate is truly chaotic and random, then changes more rapid than before might occur "just because" among a host of other reasons.

Sure, but the Earth has been around a long time, and the odds of the millennium that experiences the greatest rate of climate change co-inciding with the millennium in which there is extensive fossil fuel use without the two being related would be millions to 1.

Anyway' the gambler's fallacy isn't just using past performance to predict future outcomes, it's using past performance to predict that future outcomes will be different from the past.

If climate was staying the same, I think we have far greater concerns.

Could you please expand? I don't understand why a non-changing climate would be problematic.

And how is "oscillating" any different from what I said? You should slow down and read more carefully my point.

My bad - sometimes my inner pedant over-reacts.

Roy

[Challenger Grim]

Sure, but the Earth has been around a long time, and the odds of the millennium that experiences the greatest rate of climate change co-inciding with the millennium in which there is extensive fossil fuel use without the two being related would be millions to 1.

Hence why I said more likely, but not a guarantee. Obviously, that's what the data is for and from there we'd argue. (for instance, I'd say this current change is no more drastic than the change that occurred at the end of the great ice age).

Anyway' the gambler's fallacy isn't just using past performance to predict future outcomes, it's using past performance to predict that future outcomes will be different from the past.

Drat, I'm always getting my fallacies mixed up.

Could you please expand? I don't understand why a non-changing climate would be problematic.

Ummm.... because it's a pretty good indication the laws of physics have gone on hiatus. Climate and weather change, that's what they do. Just picking 1 sentence from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Climates can be classified according to the average and typical ranges of different variables, most commonly temperature and precipitation.

So... precipitation, imagine for a moment that it never changed. It either never rains or it never stops raining. You need to have it explained how either one would be a bad thing?

[Roy]

Hence why I said more likely, but not a guarantee. Obviously, that's what the data is for and from there we'd argue. (for instance, I'd say this current change is no more drastic than the change that occurred at the end of the great ice age).

Then I think we're actually in agreement - if the climate is currently changing at about the same rate as it did at the end of the last ice age, it may not be human-influenced; but if it's changing much faster than that (and faster than any other historical change) then we're [insert appropriate probability here] to blame.

Drat, I'm always getting my fallacies mixed up.

Better than making them

Ummm.... because it's a pretty good indication the laws of physics have gone on hiatus. Climate and weather change, that's what they do. Just picking 1 sentence from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Climates can be classified according to the average and typical ranges of different variables, most commonly temperature and precipitation.

So... precipitation, imagine for a moment that it never changed. It either never rains or it never stops raining. You need to have it explained how either one would be a bad thing?

No, but you were commenting on the global temperature average, and I can't see how it would be a bad thing if that didn't change.

I guess the subject got lost in the shuffle.

Roy

[Augustine2004]

Certainly weather changes, every moment. I'm all the more baffled, then, what climate is exactly. Consider: 'climate change.' What the H is that!? Isn't it average weather? Well, to be sure, averages do change with time. But, anyway, any definition of climate out there? Think I'll take a look at Wikipedia and see if I could get some enlightenment or idea.

[Augustine2004]

Possibly I do not understand Roy's posts, but it seems like this story:

'My horse won! I just can't believe it, what a great comeback!'

'Nuts, it was behind 99% of the time.'

'Yes, and now I get to take the trophy home.'

'No, it was behind 99% of the time.'

'Whay--what do you mean, why--what difference does it make, 1%, 50% or 99.99%!?'

'Well, your horse doesn't deserve to win, it was behind nearly all the time.'

'To hell with you, sour grapes. Kook, I mean, look! Here comes the trophy.'

[Roy]

Possibly I do not understand Roy's posts, ...

Then possibly you should be wary of criticising them.

Roy

[Augustine2004]

Then possibly you should be wary of criticising them.

Roy

Nah, it gives people insight into what mistakes I may be making or what I need to understand better.

[grmorton]

This will be quick since I don't have as much time today.

No. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that you have cherry-picked a single datum point that just barely supports your argument to flourish at everyone while ignoring the vast majority of data that doesn't support your argument.



Science is not done by ignoring 99+% of the data in favour of the one datum you like. But that is what you are doing.

No I didn't, I was talking about your treatment of the data generalIy, as the footnote in my original post makes clear.

That makes no sense. I wrote a paragraph detailing information that you must have gleaned from your source, and you separated the first section of that paragraph from the rest and treated it as a direct reply to one of your previous comments to which it was not a response.

First, i didn't say that you were lying about the detail you admitted being wrong about. Your pretence that I did is a classic example of a straw-man argument.
Second, if you had been lying (and I don't think you were),* why would it suddenly not become a lie if you were exposed and retracted it?



I'll withdraw my charge if and when you understand what the charge actually is and stop committing the offence. There is no sign yet of you doing either.



I cited two specific examples, both of which were within the scope of my original charge.



You have yet to demonstrate that I am wrong. Sure, i missed that a small fraction of the line in your graph was maginally above the average line rather than on it. I was wrong about that. But it doesn't actually matter whether it was slightly above, slightly below or exactly the same since the issue is not about the exact value of that particular datum but that you focussed on that one datum to the exclusion of all the rest.



And no amount of cherry-picking on your part will change the fact that ice extent was BELOW THE NORM for 90+% of this year.



Emphasis mine: "Arctic Ice extent is above normal--the Arctic isn't melting and the polar bears are safe"



No, Glen, that is, and always was, the basis for my charge.

I never said you were lying about a few data points. I said you were abusing sample sizes and outliers - and that is exactly what you are doing.


I am rapidly ceasing to care. I've made my case.



Yes, it was. It triggered my claim because it was a particularly egregious example of what you have been doing for some time.

You did state a length of time - you stated 2010. Here are your words again:

"My claim was that 2010 was above normal."



And how many times in the previous three years did you mention that the curve was below normal and follow it up with a comment that the Arctic might be melting?

You're reporting data sets when they temporarily support you and ignoring the same data sets for the rest of the time when they don't.



No, I comprehend real well. It's you that are failing to check what has actually been said. Like here, for example:



Emphasis mine: "Arctic Ice extent is above normal--the Arctic isn't melting and the polar bears are safe"

What in the H is wrong with you Glen?



Yeah, right. Because I call you out on abusing data and lying with statistics I suddenly become an AGW guy despite the fact that I have never (AFAICR) expressed any opinion one way or the other on AGW on this forum. Yet you try to paint me as a McCarthyite.



Yes, Glen, I see the word 'melting'. It's still there. It isn't going to go away no matter how often say it's absent.

That you have now managed to claim that it wasn't there three times without ever actually going back to check suggests that you have very little interest in ensuring you correctly represent anything that has been said.

I didn't say I spent 3 hours searching, did I Glen? I said I'd spent 3 hours too many on writing the post. It takes time to go back and check meanings and reconstruct threads of argument and make sure I'm not missing or misunderstanding anything - time which you apparently can't be bothered to spend.



Again with the "unspecified", despite me having actually included specific examples.



Oh, well. I tried. Feel free to carry on abusing statistics for your cause. You're doing much more harm than good, and I won't try to help you again.
Funny, that's exactly how I feel too.



Even if climate change is actually happening? And will you gladly fight alongside some-one who wants to stop the perversion of science (and statistics) by proponents of either side? It seems not.

They lose credibility equally fast for abusing statistics to make unsupportable claims - and your credibility on climate change has now gone.

Best wishes,

Roy

*I'm trying to write this carefully since you don't seem to be trying to comprehend my points at all, and may well take this as another accusation despite it obviously not being one.

Well, I got work to do. Making money wins over you Roy. and the sad thing is that you admitted that I was right that ice extent is above normal. Yet you have spilt many electrons protesting that that doesn't matter. How sad for you. In my opinion, you have no credibility with me. You agree that I am right, yet proclaim loudly that I can't be right. How silly.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, I got work to do. Making money wins over you Roy. and the sad thing is that you admitted that I was right that ice extent is above normal. Yet you have spilt many electrons protesting that that doesn't matter. How sad for you. In my opinion, you have no credibility with me. You agree that I am right, yet proclaim loudly that I can't be right. How silly.

Glenn - You have missed Roys points - I am not sure why. The trend for the last three years has been up, and it may be that the most recent data is finally on or above the normal line, and it may be that a lack of sunspots are contributing to a cooling trend - I personally tend to think that is the case - but from what I can see you have overstated your case relative to that data. And the issues Roy has pointed out are valid as best I can tell.


Jim

[Challenger Grim]

Glenn - You have missed Roys points - I am not sure why. The trend for the last three years has been up, and it may be that the most recent data is finally on or above the normal line, and it may be that a lack of sunspots are contributing to a cooling trend - I personally tend to think that is the case - but from what I can see you have overstated your case relative to that data. And the issues Roy has pointed out are valid as best I can tell.


Jim

They are both probably right if you ask me. Roy in the general, Glenn in the particular. No reason we can't all back up, have a beer and behave like gentlemen in our disagreements.