kallend 2,174 #376 February 5, 2014 lawrocketAd hominem is the weakest form of evidence, bill. If a person does not attack the data, does not attack the methods, does not attack the conclusions but only attacks the person, it's a strong indication of a tedious point. But you know that, bill. So how much reliance do you place on the insight of the dead guy? Did you believe the paid "experts" of the tobacco industry when they told us that smoking was harmless?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #377 February 5, 2014 More smoke and mirrors. When faced with hard data, you resort to obfuscation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisD 0 #378 February 5, 2014 brenthutch More smoke and mirrors. When faced with hard data, you resort to obfuscation. No, if you take a herd look at the OP's title you can clearly see that someone is trying to point out that global warming is being used in the same sentence as a ship being trapped in the ice. Since the beginning of human exploration ships being in clear seas and than being trapped in ice has been a problem from the beginning of ocean travel. Once again creating a connection when the data as many of you point out, clearly doesn't support this claim. The current data however clearly shows new sea lanes for more northerly winter passages that didn't exists last year, of course many ignore that because it obviously refutes this exact same logic. What you don't say is, once again, like holding up a really, really big sign! And once again everyone's arguments are more about cheep rhetorical public speaking techniques than real world information. But on the other hand it is great fun to see what you write and the passion behind it is genuine as compared with some of the others here!!!Thanks man! CBut what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #379 February 5, 2014 brenthutch More smoke and mirrors. When faced with hard data, you resort to obfuscation. Irony score 100%... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #380 February 5, 2014 ChrisD ***More smoke and mirrors. When faced with hard data, you resort to obfuscation. The current data however clearly shows new sea lanes for more northerly winter passages that didn't exists last year, C Source? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #381 February 5, 2014 kallend Did you believe the paid "experts" of the tobacco industry when they told us that smoking was harmless? Yes I did. I did not have a Ph.D. I was unqualified to question the experts and I'd the experts said it then it was true. As much as anything, that whole thing taught us not to question the experts. In fact, there are so-called "experts" and there are "real experts" - like the ones who testified that nicotine is not addictive and cigarettes were healthy. Thanks for bringing up a shining example of why we shouldn't just buy into what the "experts" are saying. Instead, we look at their statements and evidence. I don't care who is paying them. Crap is crap, no matter who is spewing it. My very skepticism towards "experts" was borne out by this very type of thing. I understand that people will put out crap for what they think are the best of reasons. Even government scientists. You know, like the NASA scientists and engineers who would not believe that the foam could knock a hole in the carbon carbon panels, despite what F=MA said? 2.5 pounds at 500 mph is quite a lot of F. Scientists are human. To err is human. Like the claims of experts with tobacco, I will question the claims of experts on plenty of other topics. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #382 February 5, 2014 kallend***Ad hominem is the weakest form of evidence, bill. If a person does not attack the data, does not attack the methods, does not attack the conclusions but only attacks the person, it's a strong indication of a tedious point. But you know that, bill. So how much reliance do you place on the insight of the dead guy? Did you believe the paid "experts" of the tobacco industry when they told us that smoking was harmless? Kallend's keyboard- http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/alarmist_keyboard.png?w=640 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #383 February 5, 2014 brenthutchWhen one earns a MBA, one picks up a few tips on how to crunch data. Just saying. the only certainty is that they taxed their livers a bit drinking at parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #384 February 6, 2014 kelpdiver***When one earns a MBA, one picks up a few tips on how to crunch data. Just saying. the only certainty is that they taxed their livers a bit drinking at parties. No doubt there! On the way we learned how the real world works, made mad stacks and retired at 48. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #385 February 6, 2014 brenthutch No doubt there! On the way we learned how the real world works, made mad stacks and retired at 48. That's funny. In another thread you rail at people who choose not to work. I guess you have different rules for yourself than for others.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #386 February 6, 2014 Living off of investments, corporate pension, and skydiving is not the same as living on the dole. My money, my rules. Did I just hijack my own thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #387 February 6, 2014 I think you are the first person I know older than 16 who uses the term mad stacks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #388 February 6, 2014 SkyDekkerI think you are the first person I know older than 16 who uses the term mad stacks. I thought mad stacks were boobs. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #389 February 6, 2014 brenthutch Living off of investments, corporate pension, and skydiving is not the same as living on the dole. My money, my rules. Did I just hijack my own thread? Social security isn't "the dole". Why do you hate poor retirees?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #390 February 7, 2014 I don't hate anyone. I just feel sorry for those who will have to depend on social security to pay the electric bills during those cold Chicago winters. As a self described 1%er, you must be very distressed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #391 February 7, 2014 lawrocket***I think you are the first person I know older than 16 who uses the term mad stacks. I thought mad stacks were boobs. Those would be "phat stacks" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #392 February 8, 2014 I thought I would follow the lead of other posters in this thread This is remarkable however you want to look at it http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/02/great_lakes_added_11_percent_i.html QuoteIce continued to build this past week on the Great Lakes due to the cold air and temperatures staying below freezing, and Lake Superior's new record shows it. The lake is 92 percent frozen, toppling a 20-year-old record of 91 percent set on Feb. 5, 1994. That statistic helped total Great Lakes ice cover soar, and we can expect to see more form in coming days."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #393 February 8, 2014 That is all true, but the alarmist will point out that that is just "weather". Remember around five years ago when we were debating how NOAA was cooking the books to validated the IPCC's projections. It is much easier now. We can quote the "peer reviewed projection" of the IPCC, compare that to the official government temperature data, (post-molestation), AND THEY STILL LOOSE! I posted IPCC projections, along with NOAA temperature data; and all that kallend could say was that I hated pensioners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #394 February 9, 2014 http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-is-27-4-above-normal-as-of-feb-7-2014/ "Now, the European Space Agency’s Cryosat satellite has allowed NSIDC researchers to produce better estimates of sea ice thickness that can be used to better calculate volume. CryoSat showed that in October 2013, sea ice volume stood at about 9,000 cubic kilometers — about 3,000 cubic kilometers more than in October 2012." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #395 February 9, 2014 brenthutchhttp://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-is-27-4-above-normal-as-of-feb-7-2014/ "Now, the European Space Agency’s Cryosat satellite has allowed NSIDC researchers to produce better estimates of sea ice thickness that can be used to better calculate volume. CryoSat showed that in October 2013, sea ice volume stood at about 9,000 cubic kilometers — about 3,000 cubic kilometers more than in October 2012." And how does it compare with 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #396 February 9, 2014 With regard to volume, we don't know, cryosat has only been up since 2010. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #397 February 9, 2014 brenthutchWith regard to volume, we don't know, cryosat has only been up since 2010. So you're claiming some kind of long term trend on the basis of comparing 2 consecutive years. That's toddler level comprehension.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #398 February 9, 2014 kallend That's toddler level comprehension. what is at this level is saying that the last 100 years of data (if we have that much) is enough to establish a statistical average for this How old is the planet?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #399 February 9, 2014 Straw man. Who said anything about trend? I said that 2013 had more arctic ice volume than 2012. Talk about toddler level comprehension. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #400 February 9, 2014 brenthutch Straw man. Who said anything about trend? I said that 2013 had more arctic ice volume than 2012. Talk about toddler level comprehension. Oh puleeze, you know its just the professor's way of personal attacks. He can't NOT do it. Its his personality. Don't hate him because he's special.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
