Gorilla Tan wrote:earthfriend wrote:Gorilla Tan wrote:GT- read further back, CR and Mike answered all her questions in full.
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.