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?