callmeslick wrote:woodchip wrote:Top Gun wrote:
What was that about the Antarctic growing, again?
TG do try and read a bit better. I said the Arctic not the Antarctic
if so, you have no clue(or, more in line with your usual modus operandi, are lying and know it). The arctic may have seen a short term gain, but it was from a near-disappearance of Artic Ice over the past 20 years.
How can I be lying when I never disputed the arctic ice is at a all time low (except it is no longer at a all time low now is it)? If at any time you warmers saw a 50% decrease you would be wetting yourselves with angst.
Now lets look at why this whole thing smells. When the warmer scientists actively try to prevent skeptical scientists from being published or go after journals that do publish the skeptics papers...you know something ain't quite right:
1) "When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor," and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."
2) "When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted."
3) "When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
4) "In an echo of the infamous "Climategate" scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world's top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as "harmful"...
The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.
A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was "less than helpful".
The unnamed scientist concluded: "Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate sceptics media side."
In the end, have a closed door policy on climate warming is not helpful and is down right dangerous. Keep drinking the kool-aid
