If Q has gone shall I remove his articles?

[Gropes]

GT- read further back, CR and Mike answered all her questions in full.
regards
EF

Having read further back until blue in face and butt (how far is "further" anyway??) what I see my friend is the same straight question stated again and again. But no where do those directly addressed actually take up the matter the question points to. I'm sure such well-informed and thoughtful posters as yourself and others here are ABLE to give cogent and logical answers. Why haven't you?

I have no brief for Gropes by the way, but reading that poster's messages the one theme that stands out is exactly this, the effort to frame a clear question and then get out of the way while waiting for the answer. It is true that Gropes does some name-calling but — and I AM trying here to stay objective — reading how you folks dance around and reply in so many insults it is very hard not to conclude that if there ARE "bad guys" they are not Gropes.

As far as posting on company time I propose to ignore that hot potato as soon as I get this observation across: NONE YOUR BUSINESS, you who have been harping on that red herring. Go cut bait. Nuff said.

Yes, that's correct, I have engaged in some name calling considering my name was bastardised and names hurled at me on the very first day on this forum. And the reason I decided to keep it to two basic questions is because I find it surprising that these experts like CR/Ravenna/Mike Davis can't even give an honest answer from two very simple questions.

First of all, let's get one thing straight. Lord Monckton's presentation on Arctic ice convieniently ignores the volume/thickness of ice in the Arctic? Why? Because engaging that subject would have completely blown his assertion that the Arctic is recovering. That's why he twist his presentation in such a way as to talk about sea ice extent only. It's the only way he can get away with it.

Secondly, Phil Jones never said there is no global warming in the last 15 years. Nor did he do a U turn. This is a popular piece of misquoting by the denialist media. Phil Jones was asked if there no statiscally significant warming in the last 15 years by the interviewer Roger Harragin. No statiscally significance global warming does not mean there is no global warming, it means they can't be certain the warming they observed did not happen by chance.

[Gorilla Tan]

Phew! Aside to Gropes but more to the point right back atcha "Mike Davis", is THIS what you really mean?

GT:
If Groupie asked what Phil Jones said and we answered with a copy of Phil Jones actual words how does that equate to dancing around the question. I suggest you get your head out of the dark place where it is so you can clean the excrement from your brain...

I'm afraid I do sincerely agree instead with the sentiment of this other recent post:

...considering my name was bastardised and names hurled at me on the very first day on this forum...

Me too.

Looking around, that is just what seems to pass for standard behavior here. Too bad! I suppose "trolling" is too strong a word, but provocation, fishing for a rise...might all be close. Childish. Mike Davis, one might agree with you that IF someone named "Groupie" existed, and IF this person did ask Phil Jones... et cetera...then, yes, IF you furnished Phil Jones actual words, one might take your point. That is a lot of "IF-s" though, don't you think?

And that doesn't even touch the question of how or whether Phil Jones' "actual words" in fact did answer the question. In fact.

[Mike Davis]

Both of you are anal retentive because we were asked what Phil Jones said. Not if but what and there was no if to it there are not any ifs involved. By copying and pasting Phil Jones answers to the questions or reading the entire exchange an intelligent person would be able to read what it was that Phil Jones said. Where do you get any if in this entire fiasco. The reporter asked Phil Jones specific questions and Phil Jones gave specific answers. Are you with the game so far? Later Gropes asked us what was Phil Jones answer to the question. The question was: Do you agree there was no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years? Phil Jones answered: YES! Then added a qualifier to his answer: But just barely because there is not enough of a time period to determine any trend. That was from memory and there was much more in the interview that proved that Phil Jones does not have a clue about weather and climate. The man is a blithering IDIOT and should have been retired years ago because people like him and Schneider did more harm to the climate research community than any sceptic has done by their pronouncements.
Groupie:
How many time do I need to tell you that your fairy tale about ice volume is a fantasy and Monckton did not need to address volume/ Thickness. What historic thickness measurements are we supposed to compare any current measurements to. I will tell you again what I told you and Q before regarding the Arctic region: In the last 15 thousand the sea has been covered with ice for as much as 10 months per year and has been ice free for as many as 10 months out of the year. Tree lines were hundreds of Kilometers closer to the North pole even 900 years ago but the farthest north was about 5 thousand years ago at the end of the Holocene Optimum and the globe has been cooling since then. The LONG term trend is cooling and there is nothing we as humans can do about it with our current level of technology and the fight against Global warming is making us less prepared fr the coming cooling.
Without properly picking the data there is no proof that the sea level is rising. Without properly picking and adjusting data there is no evidence that the globe has warmed for the last 800 years since the end MWP. which lasted hundreds of years while our minor warming began in the 1800s about 150 years ago or maybe 200 but that is a bit less than 5 hundred or 5 thousand like the Holocene Optimum.

Groupie you are still trying to put words into Phil Jones mouth that he did not say. Find the quote were he even claimed they observed warming. Of course he would have to refer you to his corrupted data set which he corrupted.

[Gorilla Tan]

Not if but what and there was no if to it there are not any ifs involved...

"Mike Davis" there is just one reason for which I pointed out the defect in your argument. You — YOU YOURSELF wrote "IF" in your immediately preceding post to this one I'm quoting from above. To repeat, you yourself wrote, in your own words: IF... So I encourage you to go back and read what you wrote. As "if" you'd do that and...eat your own words, that is. And a little humble pie...but it does get worse:

Groupie: How many time do I need to tell you that your fairy tale about ice volume is a fantasy...

So I have two questions for you, "Mike Davis".

One, I don't see a poster named "Groupie" here. Yes or no, IS there such a handle for any posts?

Two, please tell me, in your own words, why I should accept your assertion that the "fairy tale" to which you refer above concerning ice volume is a "fantasy". Please explain. I'm not here to bash you or anyone; I am here to point out that so far you are batting 000 in the making-sense department. But I'm all ears for your reasoned and clear argument to convince me otherwise. Fair warning, if you dance around the point as you have you will only invite the repetition of the question until you do put forward a convincing answer. Or...until hell freezes over, which may be the next stage once we've all cooked out or choked to death on our CO2 excreta.

If you don't come to the table in a congenial manner (no name-distorting, name-calling, gray-area scatological vocabulary, etc. etc.) it may well confirm the impression now floating about that you don't know enough of the science to be arguing the point cogently. So far what I see here is wordplay; and not one bit of reasoning from specifics to the broader picture.

[Mike Davis]

GT:
I will repeat what I said: Quote:If you keep making the same delusional remarks then you deserve to be ridiculed also. Would you prefer I had said that when you make the same delusional claims as Gropes(SHEIT) then I will ridicule you also.

As for sea ice. We are seriously discussing a system where the recognize any thing over 15% as being equal to 100% in some reports and 30% equals 100% in others. Fantasyland indeed!Now all this is determined by testing colors in a picture, applying an algorithm that accounts for clouds and a mask that removes land. For 31 years the satellites have been taking pictures of the ice and during that time the resolution has improved 1000 fold and the algorithms have been (Socalled) improved. Fantasyland indeed! It is currently understood that weather patterns follow cyclic patterns of between 40 and 80 years but these "Researchers " are claiming a base period for comparison as 30 years. The researchers even admit that if the base period was changed the "Anomaly" would not be as dramatic. Fairy tales for children!
I would think we are discussing Grace when we are talking about sea ice volume:

Pretty picture from the grace gang. It has been reported that GRACE might have a few minor flaws:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/g ... -be-large/
The research from last year claimed the ice was thinner than expected and thicker than expected depending on which team was doing the measurements. The unasked question is: Compared to what? Over What period of time?
Do you realize that in the 50s submarines were surfacing at the North Pole during the winter months? How does that figure into your thickness equation?
Groupies Groupie:
You came and showed your intelligence and maturity with your first post as Groupie did. There are 12 year old children in the world who have the ability to research climate and make their own decisions about weather/ climate. You have not attained that level of mental maturity.

If/Then is a computer programming argument and a basic in analysis. It was not stated as a what if type situation like you attempted to claim.

The entire AGW proposition is based on :
1: Corrupted physics and corrupted a definition of the Green House effect. Actually what is being promoted is not even wrong!
2:Historical records that have been selected to represent a predetermined history. Not even wrong!
3: Computer models that are trained using items 1 and 2. Not even wrong!
Not even wrong refers to a hypothesis that is not based on reality but a hallucination or fantasy. The conspiracy/ Tin Foil Hat group are the AGW promoters. The rest are attempting to point out the folly of your delusions by ridicule.
Gropes chose a "PET" name that the individual thinks fits a personality. I on the other hand amended the name to fit the first impression displayed by the individual and others saw a different persona so amended the name to fit. You chose a "Pet" name that you think fits your persona. I should probably accept and use it because to me it describes you as less than human and unable to plan for the future, unable to reason or analyze, Just a Primate that lives in the jungle according to natures whims, always fighting for survival. If that is the way you feel about your self, Who am I to dispute the results of your self examination. To me you displayed the attributes of a "Groupie" of the Gropes Fan Club. It was not an attempt to demean you but a compliment that I was attempting to elevate your status from Gorilla to Human follower of a self described Groper. Or if you wish the name used is Gropes. As in delusional, lost, mental midget, immature, or sexual pervert. Gropes described itself as being mentally myopic by the name chosen and you describe your self as an animal yet both of you want more respect than you have for yourselves. We actually are giving you more respect and are being patient with mental midgets.

[Mike Davis]

I will respond to this separately:
"it may well confirm the impression now floating about that you don't know enough of the science to be arguing the point cogently. So far what I see here is wordplay; and not one bit of reasoning from specifics to the broader picture."

Why should anyone come prepared to discuss the science when there is NO science involved in the AGW propaganda, just almost pseudo science, Cargo Cult science, Pathological science,Propaganda. What ever it is it is not science. That is why I am here to discuss the lack of scientific principles rather than science itself. AGW is based on the GIGO principle and the ability of getting people to believe fiction being reality.

[Gorilla Tan]

Why should anyone come prepared to discuss the science when there is NO science involved in the AGW propaganda, just almost pseudo science, Cargo Cult science, Pathological science,Propaganda. What ever it is it is not science.

"Mike Davis", you are saying that (AGW) is not science. Fair enough. What you write here though has to be put down to your opinion; it is not fact, that is not as you spell it out above. The question remains, why do you think so, and what can you point to specifically that would persuade a skeptic to accept your opinion?

But for just a moment let me agree with you that there is not science to support AGW, that climate change, i.e. warming is some kind of illusion and does not really exist. If that be true and if you are correct there is no scientific basis, why do you put so much effort into proving something that isn't there?

[Mike Davis]

GT:
You seem to have a problem comprehending. Climate change is a natural event that has been occurring since the atmosphere existed on this planet. AGW is not based on science. Two completely different things. Warming and cooling are natural events and trends within natural climate cycles. AGW is the Illusion! and I am trying to point the way through the smoke and mirrors being used to promote AGW and restrictive measures to fight what does not exist: AGW!!! is a fantasy.
I have provided many references over the time I have been on this forum to sites that are based on science and support the natural connection for the climate we are experiencing.
Groupie came on this forum making false claims and you came on this forum supporting those false claims. Then you want respect! When you display mental myopia you will be treated with the respect you deserve.
Read this site:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/
One of many that I have linked to. When you finish that site you can go to this site:
http://climateaudit.org/
And read the entire archive of threads that have been posted since the site was started. That is a Luke Warm site.
If you read the CCSP report on the Arctic that I referred to on the other thread you might come away with an understanding of the historic insignificance of our current climate.

To consolidate: The A in AGW is the fantasy. The impression that the globe is warming in some way outside of naturally occurring climate change is the fantasy.

[Mike Davis]

I realized that the term "Climate Change" is redundant. It is like saying Tall tall or blue blue because climate is change. Whether change from one region to another of through time. We can see average historic climate over a set period of time but the climate was the variables that were averaged to arrive at the results. The true historic climate was the range of values experienced during that portion of time.
I guess the upside to this entire fiasco is the number of nonproductive people that were kept off the welfare rolls by paying them to tilt at windmills and chase fantasies. The down side is others have come to believe there is some truth in the fairy tales.

[Gorilla Tan]

The A in AGW is the fantasy. The impression that the globe is warming in some way outside of naturally occurring climate change is the fantasy.

"Mike Davis": Thank you for making this clearer. You are saying that your position is, from the above, that the climate IS warming, but that the reason is not related to human activity. Have I understood correctly?