What a silly post. Your ignorance on this subject could easily be cured by some reading. Read the NSIDC update from August 7th and you'll the be better informed.

Here's the latest report from NSIDC, "the balding Arctic", which may
answer a few of your questions.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/20...alding-arctic/


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
'To do is to be' - Nietzsche
'To be is to do' - Kant
'Do be do be do' - Sinatra

On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 10:15:51 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
Here's the latest report from NSIDC, "the balding Arctic", which may

answer a few of your questions.



http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/20...alding-arctic/





--

Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.

'To do is to be' - Nietzsche

'To be is to do' - Kant

'Do be do be do' - Sinatra

On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 10:15:51 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
Here's the latest report from NSIDC, "the balding Arctic", which may

answer a few of your questions.



http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/20...alding-arctic/





--

Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.

'To do is to be' - Nietzsche

'To be is to do' - Kant

'Do be do be do' - Sinatra

The whole thing is a joke and the dominant AGW's are trying every which way to explain their way out of their dismally wrong predictions.

Record level Antarctic Ice
Record Cold Arctic Summer
Global temperatures stagnant and arguably drifting down
That lucky Old Sun rolling around heaven all day has now taken a cosmic mug of Horlicks and gone to bed for forty winks where magnetic and sunspot activity is concerned, and yet the AGW people tell us that although the record low Hurricane and USA Tornado season and all the aforementioned facts laid before you are indisputable yet somehow this is all explainable in the world of AGW zealots; is totally implausible.

If these so-called experts were so bloody good then why didn't they predict the reality compared to their dismal predictions? It's an arrogance beyond words: like UKMO meeting several months ago after failing to get one AGW LRF correct in the last ten years then boldly telling the public that 'AH yes' they can explain why we haven't been getting those BBQ Summers they have been predicting seemingly forever. You see its all down to ice melt -so much in fact with AGW that now our summers will be dominated by cool wet condition=s and not the BBQ ones they'd been so convinced about for the past ten years . But again reality bites these blustering over paid idiots straight in the arse and we then proceed to have the 3rd warmest sunniest July in the UK.

Are you really taking this garbage seriously?

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:36:35 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 10:15:51 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:

Here's the latest report from NSIDC, "the balding Arctic", which may



answer a few of your questions.







http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/20...alding-arctic/











--



Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.



'To do is to be' - Nietzsche



'To be is to do' - Kant



'Do be do be do' - Sinatra



The whole thing is a joke and the dominant AGW's are trying every which way to explain their way out of their dismally wrong predictions.



Record level Antarctic Ice

Record Cold Arctic Summer

Global temperatures stagnant and arguably drifting down

That lucky Old Sun rolling around heaven all day has now taken a cosmic mug of Horlicks and gone to bed for forty winks where magnetic and sunspot activity is concerned, and yet the AGW people tell us that although the record low Hurricane and USA Tornado season and all the aforementioned facts laid before you are indisputable yet somehow this is all explainable in the world of AGW zealots; is totally implausible.



If these so-called experts were so bloody good then why didn't they predict the reality compared to their dismal predictions? It's an arrogance beyond words: like UKMO meeting several months ago after failing to get one AGW LRF correct in the last ten years then boldly telling the public that 'AH yes' they can explain why we haven't been getting those BBQ Summers they have been predicting seemingly forever. You see its all down to ice melt -so much in fact with AGW that now our summers will be dominated by cool wet condition=s and not the BBQ ones they'd been so convinced about for the past ten years . But again reality bites these blustering over paid idiots straight in the arse and we then proceed to have the 3rd warmest sunniest July in the UK.



Are you really taking this garbage seriously?

You are mad, of course.

*Every* single National science academy, *every one* of 660 scientific institutions, *every* author of almost 14,000 recent publications on climate science (Foster 2013), 97% of 12,000 authors in a separate peer-reviewed study of scientific abstracts (Cook 2013) and "every* government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio feel differently to you.

Why do you feel you are better positioned to say that they are all wrong, larry?

On 22/08/2013 06:48, Dawlish wrote:

*Every* single National science academy, *every one* of 660
scientific institutions, *every* author of almost 14,000 recent
publications on climate science (Foster 2013), 97% of 12,000 authors
in a separate peer-reviewed study of scientific abstracts (Cook 2013)
and "every* government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio feel
differently to you.

Why do you feel you are better positioned to say that they are all
wrong, larry?


Why did so few people defy the religious orthodoxy of the Middle Ages?

For the same reason, fear of the consequences of stepping out of line -
OK, AGW sceptics aren't going to be burned at the stake, but they *will*
find it very hard to pursue a career in climatology if they don't toe
the establishment line...

--
Regards,

Paul Hyett

On 22/08/2013 07:58, Vidcapper wrote:
On 22/08/2013 06:48, Dawlish wrote:

*Every* single National science academy, *every one* of 660
scientific institutions, *every* author of almost 14,000 recent
publications on climate science (Foster 2013), 97% of 12,000 authors
in a separate peer-reviewed study of scientific abstracts (Cook 2013)
and "every* government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio feel
differently to you.

Why do you feel you are better positioned to say that they are all
wrong, larry?


Why did so few people defy the religious orthodoxy of the Middle Ages?

This is false comparison. Scientists are always looking to overturn the
status quo, but it can only be done if you have real *EVIDENCE*.

People like Galileo and Copernicus *did* defy the religious orthodoxy of
the Middle Ages - that is how the Age of Enlightenment got started.

For the same reason, fear of the consequences of stepping out of line -
OK, AGW sceptics aren't going to be burned at the stake, but they *will*
find it very hard to pursue a career in climatology if they don't toe
the establishment line...

Real scientific sceptics are one thing and they are still genuine
scientists who are trying to better understand the climate system and
refine our models - I would count Lindzen in that camp (but only just).

However, there is a vast raft of ultraright wing pathological liars
knowingly spreading deliberate disinformation about climate change to
the public starting with the likes of the late Prof Fred Seitz who was
the canonical "denier for hire". He cut his teeth on denying tobacco
causes cancer before moving on to deny that CO2 causes climate change.

Thanks to the US public access information of the tobacco lobby we can
actually see what his employers thought of him even before he became
involved in cooking up the "Oregon Petition" of ignorant also rans.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html

It isn't hard to spot deniers for hire. Check their previous positions
on tobacco causing cancer, CFCs damaging the ozone layer...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Hi

Thanks for all the replies to my original post that I got. As usual the original topic I raised was soon lost in the politics and squabbling that seems to dog anything of interest to do with either climate or weather on this newsgroup.

Interestingly, I posted the same topic to the UKWW forum, and although there was slightly less interest, all the replies added something to my original post, I was even thanked for posting to the forum!

Perhaps I should have realised that this exactly what would happen with a subject that could be so fractious.

Bruce.

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:58:21 AM UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
On 22/08/2013 06:48, Dawlish wrote:



*Every* single National science academy, *every one* of 660

scientific institutions, *every* author of almost 14,000 recent

publications on climate science (Foster 2013), 97% of 12,000 authors

in a separate peer-reviewed study of scientific abstracts (Cook 2013)

and "every* government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio feel

differently to you.



Why do you feel you are better positioned to say that they are all

wrong, larry?





Why did so few people defy the religious orthodoxy of the Middle Ages?



For the same reason, fear of the consequences of stepping out of line -

OK, AGW sceptics aren't going to be burned at the stake, but they *will*

find it very hard to pursue a career in climatology if they don't toe

the establishment line...



--

Regards,



Paul Hyett

"The consequences of stepping out of line.........."

Oh come on. It's all a great big global conspiracy Paul, isn't it?

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:11:24 AM UTC+1, exmetman wrote:
Hi



Thanks for all the replies to my original post that I got. As usual the original topic I raised was soon lost in the politics and squabbling that seems to dog anything of interest to do with either climate or weather on this newsgroup.



Interestingly, I posted the same topic to the UKWW forum, and although there was slightly less interest, all the replies added something to my original post, I was even thanked for posting to the forum!



Perhaps I should have realised that this exactly what would happen with a subject that could be so fractious.



Bruce.

Yes, it was a decent thread until larry contributed his twopenn'orth.

What exactly is your view, Bruce? You never said, as you never contributed, after the OP.