Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming II

Peer review. That means nothing any more since people like Monet use his wife and co- worker as his peer review
How about this?


http://www.personalliberty.com/news/nasa-data-proves-global-warming-computer-models-wrong-29347/

 

Ahhh. Deflection! What does an artist have to do with climate change?

So you are willing to offer a blog as "proof" but will dismiss peer-review?

"Prove it" with science/peer review. Show us a model that has been proven wrong and explain to us why it was wrong. Show us the error analysis of why the models are wrong. Blogs are not "proof". Weathermen making claims without analysis is not "proof".
I will be looking forward as to your spin and/or deflection.

 

You show you do not read posts

The Quote from the Blog is Nasa from a peer review journal. Even when I show peer review from NASA you try to claim I am wrong. I guess NASA and peer review only matter when they agree with you

 

Then link to the peer reviewed paper and not a blog. I do not trust a blog's interpretation of a study. Blogs Lie!

 

I showed it you prove it wrong.

Here is link from the Blog

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

 

LOL! Nobody has shown it to be true. Your bias is just so huge that you uncritically accept any information that is congruent with your preconceptions. I'm honestly concerned about people like this.

 

Spencer & Braswell has been criticized by many climate scientists including some of his fellow skeptics.
Climate trends are based on a minimum, depending on the error bars, of 17 years of data. Anything less than that is not significant.
The first sentence of your link, "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. " should be a red flag. I have bolded the critical phrase. Not only does S&B not "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism" but, due to the short term of the data, it does not even make a dent.

And is it not the deniers that usually state that 150 years is too short a time to determine what the climate is doing? And now they use a paper that has only 12 years of data as "blowing a hole in global warming alarmism"? The deniers just can not seem to get their story straight.

Got anything else?

"Prove it" with science/peer review. Show us a model that has been proven wrong and explain to us why it was wrong. Show us the error analysis of why the models are wrong. Blogs are not "proof". Weathermen making claims without analysis is not "proof".
I will be looking forward as to your spin and/or deflection.

 

All I have seen is the left complaining about the source. They have not shown were the article is wrong.

 

I have shown you proof. If you think it false prove it. I will not be your researcher.

The Blog was not good enough. I then went to yahoo news and still you deny it. I am waiting for proof you useless opinions prove nothing

 

What part of "Climate trends are based on a minimum, depending on the error bars, of 17 years of data. Anything less than that is not significant. " do you not understand?

 

So you can not prove it wrong and you are avoiding it by going another direction with more useless opinions

 

I have tried to provide an example that a 5 year old would understand.
What part of "Climate trends are based on a minimum, depending on the error bars, of 17 years of data. Anything less than that is not significant. " do you not understand?

 

So you refuse to address what present. I get it you have nothing to refute so you start a rabbit trail to avoid it

 

And you, sir, cannot or will not answer a simple question. "you refuse to address what present."

 

I will not answer when you refuse to address Durban or the NASA report

 

1). It was not a "NASA report". It was a paper by Spencer that used NASA data.
2). I did address the "NASA report (sic)':

I cannot help if you cannot understand the statistical term "significant".

 

Hmmm.

.......

 

I wonder why.

“The debate is over”,
“The time to act is now, we can’t wait for proof”,
“Look around you, ice caps are melting, forests are dying”
“There is a consensus among mainstream scientists”

 

You deny the NASA information?

 

So we have natural climate change that man can do nothing about

 

Exactly!

......

 

Warmers are incredible. Again and again they get caught distorting the scientific process then demand we believe their jink "science."

 

We don't demand you believe anything. But if you don't believe the evidence, you can't claim the mantle of science.

 

"Evidence" presented by people who openly admit cooking data is fool's evidence.

 

No.
Do you deny that 10 years worth of data is not significant?