Dot Earth Blog: Warming Arctic Tundra Producing Pop-Up Forests

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:

Funny, I have said this was going to happen.

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, I recall you saying that climate change is all a scam perpetrated by grant-seeking scientists.

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I have said that climate change is a natural process that has been warming for the last 10,000 years.

Judged:

1

1

1

Nauseous wrote:

Wrong on two counts. For the past 8,000 years the trend has been towards cooling. And the present, sudden and accelerating warming of the past century is anything but natural.

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong on two counts. For the past 8,000 years the trend has been towards cooling. And the present, sudden and accelerating warming of the past century is anything but natural.

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you always right, or do you just think you are?

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
If that was the case then we would of been back at an ice age by now. Do you ever really think about what you say? Consider what you post?

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Face it, Tina; you haven't a clue. You make up numbers at will. In short, you lie in order to deny responsibility, even when lives are on the line.
Yes, the Earth's climate has been cooling for 8,000 years--until the past century's sudden temperature spike skyward. No, this does not mean we are "in an ice age".
Remember this chart from the last three times I rolled it or another one like it out for your enlightenment? I don't know why I bother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Face it, Tina; you haven't a clue. You make up numbers at will. In short, you lie in order to deny responsibility, even when lives are on the line.
Yes, the Earth's climate has been cooling for 8,000 years--until the past century's sudden temperature spike skyward. No, this does not mean we are "in an ice age".
Remember this chart from the last three times I rolled it or another one like it out for your enlightenment? I don't know why I bother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
I leave the pulling numbers out of air to alarmist and if your going to quote a source then keep in mind like university professors I do not consider wikipedia to be an acceptable source of information on anything and espically on the subject of climate.
I included a link of something I would find acceptable. Also consider multiple links instead of one link and read them before posting. Sometimes you notice that one is different from the others and that is important to keep your posts from being debunked. Also check the position of your sources. Many skeptics will do that and checking yourself allows you to address to issues proactively.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/...
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD0...

Nauseous wrote:

In short, you lie in order to deny responsibility, even when lives are on the line.

DudTenners wrote:

<quoted text>we have been warming ever since the last ice Age, with several warmer spikes that cannot be explained by blaming Bush, GM, Whaling, Fox news or eating meat.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that both of the studies you cited contradict your claim of warming, don't you? No surprise. The record is the record. Here's Stott et al ("We find a decrease in sea surface temperatures of ~0.5&#8201;°C over the past 10,000&#8201;yr"): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n70...

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
They were example of how to use links and what I consider a quality link. In order to help you see the difference I found links that would support your point of view so you can see the advantage.

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Hah! What YOU consider a quality link? And who are you to judge that?
The composite temperature graph posted on Wikipedia is widely available, although usually simplified to a single mean trend line. However, on the Wikipedia page you can easily click through to any of the twelve peer-reviewed studies it references; you'll just need to fork out some dollars to purchase those articles from the journals, which I am not will to do on your behalf.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
And yet wikipedia has a history of bias and falsified entries. So bad that professors and teachers refuse to accept it as a source. If they will not accept wikipedia as a source then why should anyone else.

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Then pay for the articles.