Originally Posted by Besoeker:
I think that many seem to lack the ability to comprehend numerical data, far less analyse it.
And that's not just here.
Examples abound.

And many do not understand simple english :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
Evidently comprehension, spelling, grammar, and punctuation are also areas of weakness.

If you cant defeat the argument pick holes in the presentation - classic argument by people who've lost the rational debate
[Rep]

YCHTT wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
I asked what circumstances with regard to the ice caps meting/freezing would dictate evidence for or against the argument that they are melting or not.

I wish I could understand this question :-)

&

Originally Posted by :
So if you're effectively saying that "less ice melt this year than last year doesn't disprove AGW", :-) then what is your position in relation to ice melting :-)?

i.e. what evidence can there be for (or against) AGW with regard to ice melting to reach a conclusion ? (my smilies)

On the assumption that you are trying to question whether I believe there is a relationship, (or not), between consensus accepted AGW and year-on-year sea-ice changes my position is this:-

Yes there is a definite relationship. The extra heat put into the atmosphere & oceans as a result of anthropogenic-emitted CO2 forcings means that on average over a reasonable period of time, the ice-melt in summer will gradually get greater, (& the re-freeze in winter will get less (including thickness)). Because of the vagaries of other factors such as ocean current changes & winds & short term weather variations such as the NAO, this means that every successive year of ice-melt doesn’t have to be greater than the previous year but a TREND to greater ice-loss is occurring.

I think the articles by NSDIC in the links clearly show that this is happening and is supported by the vast majority of ‘polar’ scientists.

(nb it shows you haven’t read the links in detail because you would have shouted from the roof-tops that (2nd, last sentence) :-

Originally Posted by :
Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3.6 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small.

On the other hand, you are prepared to believe the data distortions and analytical techniques of one ‘journalist’ of unknown provenance. Really says how naive you are.

Tony Bennett wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Comparing a gain of thousands of square miles of ice in 2008 as against 2007 with Derby County having beaten Manchester United 28-0 last season certainly doesn't do it for me.

Well, I’ve always said that an analogy is never as good as the real thing. Obviously, the NSDIC scientists are trying to dumb-down the ‘TREND’ concept to the mentality of the minority people who are unable or don't want to admit to understand.
&

Originally Posted by :
P.S. The world has been getting warmer over the last 50 years, but only through natural cycles and flucuations since the end of the Ice Age

Well, nobody would deny that natural cycles contribute to both global warming & cooling. However, the scientists who are studying this in detail have concluded with a greater than 90% probability that the current phase of warming is accentuated by extra radiation retention due to the increase in CO2 levels as a result of burning fossil fuels.

Since you can’t apparently understand the ‘Trend’ concept above, what facts persuade you so completely that it is ‘only’ natural fluctuations?

Some analogies which you may understand:-

If you went to a ‘bookies’ to place a bet on a horse race, and you were offered odds of 20-1 on your favourite to win, but that the bookies were offering 20-1 ON for another horse, would you risk your hard earned cash?
Or, if you’re not a betting man,
Suppose the Police had clear statistics that by walking alone down a certain street between, say 10pm & 6 am, then you would have a greater than 90% chance of being mugged or worse, would you walk down that street between those hours on the 'don 't-believe-the-Police' opinion of a complete stranger ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:


We hear on the news that the polar bears are in danger of the ice caps melting, despite the fact that polar bears are the best swimming mammals there are on the planet.

Yes and if only polar bears could speak. We would then know for sure what they think about all of this global warming business. How big is the garden in your average 'government affordable housing scheme'? Compare that to the size of the polar bear's back garden. You can look at it yourself using Goggle Earth. It's huge!

Now to add insult to injury of our polar bears it is also apparently bad for them that the Americans were planning to build a few pumping stations in order to access the huge oil reserves in Alaska. I was also reading an article about related things to do with polar bears and the journalist was interviewing some of the locals in this remote outpost of civilization. They said in the old days the fisherman used to chuck them a sandwich or two. The polar bears were quite friendly and would come right up to them, no problem. Now there are big signs saying 'do not feed the bears'.

The small town, once a quiet place has a new industry in it. Hundreds of global warming scientists visit each year to assess the decline of the bears. The locals tell them there are just as many as there have always been and they are talking rubbish. But their opinion does not count because they are not scientists and don't know the first thing about polar bears. They think the same about the scientists. Most have never even lived in an area where the bears live and they come into town talking all this rubbish and are a bit of a laughing stock.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Compared to the unproven scientific claim that the earth is waming due to man made c02 emmisions(which account for less than 10% of all c02 emmsions) yes.

But actually it is not a scientific claim at all(see below)

Yet, in post #24, you took another member to task for dismissing it as a scientific claim. If, as you now state, it isn't a scientific claim, then he can't have dismissed it as such.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Out of interest is man made global warming a scientific claim ?

No.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
So additionally, if a scientist in the mainstream makes a claim, it does not necessarily mean that his scientific claim is necessary true, that he is not necessarily lying through his teeth, and that the gullible public will not necessarily believe it because he is a (supposedly) respectable scientist.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
By the way, when I asked you what you were referring to, I was referring to your claim: "Evidently comprehension, spelling, grammar, and punctuation are also areas of weakness." and like Clippo, you've conveniently dodged the question (or have failed to comprehend it again :-))

That I didn't answer your comment in a time frame that suited you cannot reasonably construed my dodging it.
If you care to look back at a few threads, you will see why it is clearly evident that comprehension, spelling, grammar, and punctuation are areas of weakness.
Few of us are immune. Your own post, quoted above, demonstrates that.
[Rep]

It does get so tedious when we get into spelling and grammar arguments. Some people are lucky enough to have had a private education, but for all the rest they weren't even taught it properly at school. It wasn't their fault; they (including myself) got ripped off and screwed by the government. Especially if you are about my age and had a Labour government in power during your early education, which applied new controversial methods and told people to spell words as they are pronounced. Now that we are faced with a similar regime it's a bit fatuous to use this as ammunition against one’s arguments. Furthermore it highlights two different approaches to life, some focus on content and others on presentation. My experiences are that scientifically minded people nearly always see content is more important. Salesmen are the opposite though.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
If you cant defeat the argument pick holes in the presentation -

What argument was that?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
It does get so tedious when we get into spelling and grammar arguments. Some people are lucky enough to have had a private education, but for all the rest they weren't even taught it properly at school. It wasn't their fault; they (including myself) got ripped off and screwed by the government. Especially if you are about my age and had a Labour government in power during your early education, which applied new controversial methods and told people to spell words as they are pronounced.

I mostly agree with that.
I note your denigration of the education system, particularly for people of your era. Yet, you seem to have risen above it's failings.

On the subjects of comprehension, spelling, and grammar, I think there are horses for courses.

We were at our local street market yesterday. The produce is wonderful. The spelling isn't. Coriander isn't "corryander" and aubergine doesn't begin with an "O". It doesn't matter. You can see what you are getting.

On the other hand, in a technical document, getting it right can be rather important. Getting it wrong can be costly - or worse.

There is an adage I like. I may have posted it here before.
"Say what you mean, otherwise people will think you mean what you say."
[Rep]

I know the discussion has moved on from the original post but it gives me great pleasure to post this. From:-
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...phere-today/:-

At the end of this article, which is basically the same as the Steven Goddard ‘The Register' article, there is a retraction by Steven Goddard of his ‘discrepancies’, finishing with:-

Originally Posted by :
My apologies to Dr. Meiers and Dr. Serreze, and NSIDC. Their analysis,
graphs and conclusions were all absolutely correct. Arctic ice is indeed
melting nearly as fast as last year, and this is indeed troubling.
- Steven Goddard

That’s his credibility blown :-) :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
I know the discussion has moved on from the original post

My apologies for the digression, old fellow.
:-)
BTW, your link didn't work for me.
This did:
Watts Up With That?
[Rep]