Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
The San Francisco Gate... The bellweather of unbiased journalism. g

The San Francisco Gate????? WTF?? David Perlman is the San Francisco
Chronicle Science Writer. And, did you just happen to see that there
were 15,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting
saying the same things? I know, I know, the party that you goose step
to has told you that global warming isn't happening. And what about the
team of scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the
University of Colorado and the International Arctic Research Center at
the University of Alaska in Fairbanks? Suppose they don't know what
they are talking about, but Rush and Hannity do, huh?

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.



I love you too, man. Peace.

What an intelligent and well thought reply.....NOT.......

I take it that although you have no science to repute the article, you
must goose step to the party and try to negate it, huh?

Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.

34 years?

Damn, you ARE dumb, aren't you?

Dan wrote:
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Tim wrote:

basskisser wrote:

And in case you didn't read, or comprhend,

um, hmm

Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle.


when did "um, hmm become a "girlie giggle"?


Relax. Simple boys are easily amused.

And HERE'S DAN......every single post I make, he stalks!

Infatuation.......
Infatuation......
It's driving Dan crazy.....
It's making Dan CRAAAZZZYYY.......

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:07:47 -0500, Dan
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL


Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

Thanks for the post, SWS, but aren't you the "STOP IT" guy? We all know
the boy lives to pick fights here and will spin them at will until the
other party is exhausted.

See any names called in that?

It's just a counter to a sfgate article that has...um....mistakes.

Such as?

ACP wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:48:18 -0500, "ACP" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

Oh boy! Stirring the pot. 8)

Not at all.

Just pointing out that science is science. And these guys know ice
science.

Some folks don't like to have anything pointed out to them, credible science
or not.

I know, I posted an article with credible science and you shortwave and
others immediately ****ed on it as not worthy.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 04:47:30 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Where you are dead wrong is your belief that the "science" in the
article came from sfgate. It didn't. Try reading again. You'll see
where it came from, including NASA. As for your article, what makes you
think that THAT particular article is good, sound science, but articles
to the contrary from other scholars and study centers is not?

Essentially yes.

The IARC is the definitive, if not the only, ice science center in the
world. They are consulted on everything from ice breaking to ice
bergs to pack ice to...well you name it. Here's their charter
statement.

"The International Arctic Research Center [IARC] serves as a focal
point of integrating/synthesizing arctic research efforts in terms of
climate change and communicates the results to the global climate
research community. Our core research group interacts with a larger
number of scientists from many parts of the world, enabling climate
change research to truly be an international effort."

That's research - not observation and conclusion over a short period
of time. They have a long term view and historical data covering a
huge period of time - a much larger sample than what is covered in the
story you quoted - which, by the way, was reported in the NYT about
two week ago and is continued today.

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.

Just because it doesn't fit your party's agenda, perhaps?

And what party would that be?

RNC?

So, in your eyes, they are the ONLY scientists that are credible and
able to collect data about the North Pole ice sheet?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 04:47:30 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Where you are dead wrong is your belief that the "science" in the
article came from sfgate. It didn't. Try reading again. You'll see
where it came from, including NASA. As for your article, what makes you
think that THAT particular article is good, sound science, but articles
to the contrary from other scholars and study centers is not?

Essentially yes.

We can make this very simple. How do you know for a fact that the
scholars and study scientists in the article I posted are wrong? You've
stated that your post is "real science". That would make one think that
the universities, NASA, and other study groups are not engaging in
"real science" your eyes.

No. No I'm not, and your petty accusations does nothing for your
credibility.


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.

34 years?

Damn, you ARE dumb, aren't you?

Tim wrote:
No. No I'm not, and your petty accusations does nothing for your
credibility.


Then you are grossly mistaken. It wouldn't take someone 34 years to
prove the scientists in the article wrong. Now are you mistaken, or do
you just not undestand that?

I'm understanding that you said you would wait to prove the scientist
wrong. the year 2040? I believe that is 34 years away.

can you wait that long? or are you placing your bets now?


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
No. No I'm not, and your petty accusations does nothing for your
credibility.


Then you are grossly mistaken. It wouldn't take someone 34 years to
prove the scientists in the article wrong. Now are you mistaken, or do
you just not undestand that?