politics

Godwin’s Law Alert: Fox News

37 Comments

Yes the mustachioed gentleman in the lower right hand image is Hitler:
GoodwinsLawAlert

The Fox announcer doesn’t go so far as to actually say that climate scientists are Nazi’s. It seems to be: Stalin lied, Hitler lied, then rhetorical question about whether scientists would lie. Still… a bit mu

After the introduction there is an interesting interview with Stephen Dubner, one of the Freaks of Freakonomics. (Stephen does not trigger Godwin’s law.)

To hear the interview, visit Fox business.com.

37 thoughts on “Godwin’s Law Alert: Fox News”

  1. Fox News? Going a bit overboard? Intimating things that aren’t quite true? Exaggerating? That’s a first!

  2. There is a different kind of connection with the Nazis in a more abstract sense in the way the science was done. (Mind you, I haven’t seen this article but this is something I noticed on my own).

    Back in the 1930’s there was a group of folks doing archeology and anthropological studies where were convinced that there really was an ancient, prehistoric, race of people superior to all others and that these people had spread out and dominated the known world at the time. Hitler didn’t believe in it but he allowed it to continue because it was useful in getting the people to willingly buy in to letting him have power. He was going to restore the decedents of that race to its “rightful” place. He eventually abandoned the group after he had the power he wanted.

    So everywhere these people went they turned up “evidence” of this race. Egypt, Tibet, all over the world. They kept breathing their own exhaust and kept finding things that they interpreted as “proof” that validated their hypothesis.

    The point being that when one sets out to find something, it is very easy to take the data, turn it a little, adjust the light, squint just right, and find evidence of what you wanted to find. Sort of like the waterboarding of the data that was going on at CRU evidenced in the Harry readme file until it finally gave the result they wanted to find.

    I find a lot of parallel in what is going (seemingly) going on at CRU and GISS with what was going on with the Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft das Ahnenerbe. They want so hard to find it that they see it everywhere they look, even if they have to settle on one or two or three trees somewhere in Russia to validate the notion.

  5. Too bad about the Nazi thing… not called for and not a fair comparison at all.

    A bunch of technical inaccuracies as well, both in the book and in the interview. These folks need an unbiased scientific consultant to help them keep the facts straight. I vote for Luica!

  6. SteveF:

    These folks need an unbiased scientific consultant to help them keep the facts straight. I vote for Luica!

    LOL.

    But I’d stop at “these folks … need … help”. 😉

  7. I caution all from any attempt to make these people comparable to Hitler, the nazis, and their predecessors, and to my knowledge (or my interpretations), the ur-master race. May I also note that the harp back to a greater past into which life could be breathed again goes back at least to the start of the 20th century, and perhaps to unification and perhaps beyond.

    My reason for caution is one of scale, yes I can see the resonances, but it is like comparing a rock rabbit (Hyrax) to an elephant. They are comparable because they are closely related, but the scale is quite divergent,

    Hitler, and particularly Goering, were significant revolutionaries, these scientists should not be considered in their league, or the same breath.

    If I can use the word “greatness” to mean a big example of, then the fuhrer et al, were great, these other guys are just grunts by comparison. They are not comparable in the positive mean of the term.

    Alex

  8. The worst thing about being a sceptic/lukewarmer is you have to depend on FOX news to report the stories that support your view because all of the other MSM sources are hell fire and brimestone alarmists.


  10. HankHenry (Comment#24603) November 24th, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Here’s the cast of characters, including Harry and the IT guy.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/

    And here is Harry’s title:

    Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming

    I just had to laugh …

  11. It pains me to listen to Conservative Talk Radio (but I can’t help myself since that’s the only issue oriented radio there is). Dennis Miller & Medved are ok. I was listening to Hannity (I HAVE to stop doing that!) this evening talking about the “Climate Hoax” and thought “Oh my God, this is what I have on my side?, can it be true that there is no other option?” The thing is that we’d be voting on the same side of policy issues 90% of the time, but I hate being on the same “team” as people like him.

  14. “Hitler, and particularly Goering, were significant revolutionaries, these scientists should not be considered in their league, or the same breath.”

    I wasn’t meaning to compare the climate scientists to Hitler or the Nazis. I meant to compare them to scientists who were used for political ends in another era.

    And while I appreciate what you say about scale, in this case the goal is global redistribution of wealth and regulation of industry on a planetary scale. Not sure which is larger. If you can convince people to accept regulations that make it very expensive for industry to expand in one location while another location is exempt from the regulations, you have a huge transfer of industry from the “developed” to the “developing” world. “Global warming” ends up being used by “world leaders” to distribute wealth around the planet and the dire predictions, constant drumbeat from the press, and teaching this stuff in schools as if it is proven fact put the people in a state where they are practically begging these people to do it.

    It is basically about global economic control. Not sure even Hitler had dreams that large.

  15. Unbelievable. Fox just uses suggestion, crosspatch compares to Nazi scientists, Alexander Harvey says no, they’re not as great as the Nazis, crosspatch clarifies that the ‘goal’ is grander than that of the Nazis……

    On Denial Depot this would be funny satire, here it’s just scary.

  16. Oh, I think the AGW promotion team invoked Godwin’s law years and years ago, with their choice of the term ‘denialist’, and calls for trials based on ‘crimes against humanity’.
    Pointing out how other historical experiences that combine ‘scientific consensus’ + government policy + unethical behavior has turned out is not really so out of line is it?
    We have a President openly talking about marginalizing those who disagree on AGW. We have an Australian PM calling for limiting discussion on AGW. And please let us not forget Hansen, Kennedy, Gore, Suzuki, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum and their various calls for shutting down the discussion.
    People know Hansen is not strutting around in a brown shirt. They also know that he and his pals have been over the top for years.
    Why is it Okey-dokey for the AGW believers and promoters to use certain allusions and not OK for the victims of those promoters to point out that those allusions might fit them better?
    But I am certain of this: Michael Godwin does enjoy the invocation of his law.

  17. hunter–
    Yes. The activist side triggered Godwin’s law long ago. When I see it anywhere on the spectrum, I note it at the blog.

  19. “crosspatch compares to Nazi scientists, Alexander Harvey says no”

    Again, no, you are apparently completely missing the point. I am NOT comparing them to Nazi scientists. I am saying that Nazis used a group of scientists who sincerely believed in what they were doing for their own political ends. The “scientists” so deeply “believed in” their hypothesis that they “found” evidence of it everywhere. Today’s political leaders are exploiting scientists to sway people to support their agenda.

    Climate “scientists” today are being used by political leaders to achieve their ends. There appears to be a group of these “scientists” that so believe in their hypothesis that they “find” evidence if it everywhere, albeit often after the data is “corrected” to properly “show” the evidence.

    I am comparing science being exploited for political ends in two different eras. Not the motivations of the politics. I am not in any way implying that the scientists of today share any ideological notions of the scientists of the earlier era aside from deeply believing in their conclusions and a willingness to twist raw evidence to support the conclusion.

    So here you have two examples of scientists who deeply believe in their conclusions and who “spin” the results to produce a desired outcome. In both cases their zeal was exploited by political leaders to achieve political goals. In today’s case it goes like this:

    1. A catastrophe is looming.
    2. It can be mitigated.
    3. The catastrophe is the result of bad policy.
    4. It can be mitigated with “correct” policy.
    5. These policies are in line with our agenda.
    6. The policies of our opposition caused this problem.
    7. Elect us and allow us to fix the problem.
    8. If you elect the opposition, polar bears will fall out of the sky and crush your car.

    If one had spoken out in the 1930’s against the “science” being done, they would likely have been “disappeared”. If one speaks out today they are ignored in the “alphabet” electronic networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and ridiculed in the ink-based media and are basically barred from publishing their work anywhere except blogs or opposition aligned media which in itself ridiculed.

    You are “disappeared” today but in a different way. You are made to appear irrelevant and so can be ignored if you speak against the warmers.

  20. crosspatch (Comment#24709)

    The “scientists” so deeply “believed in” their hypothesis that they “found” evidence of it everywhere.

    What, you mean net glacier melt, mass icecap loss, rising sea level, shifting species, increased ocean heat content, ocean acidification, cooling stratosphere, changing precipitation patterns, er…. thermometer stuff (but it’s all fixed don’tchaknow)….. dang, you’re right, they sure did find evidence driven by their ideological convictions…..

    If one speaks out today they are ignored in the “alphabet” electronic networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and ridiculed in the ink-based media and are basically barred from publishing their work …

    This is a ludicrous assertion from a UK perspective at least. The Telegraph, The Times, the Economist all regularly feature ‘contrarian’ viewpoints, our Radio 4 Today programme recently had Plimer declaring that most CO2 emissions come from volcanoes ho ho ho and Channel 4 broadcast the disgraceful pack of lies called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. I’m afraid your attempt to characterise yourself as an oppressed band of anti-Nazi-types doesn’t stand up to any examination, and your appropriation of the word ‘disappeared’ is deeply distasteful. The fact that you’ve got zilch science to back up your position (unless you count Professor Plimer spouting straightforward lies as ‘science’) is your problem.

  21. I must disagree with respect to the Economist (my favorite paper). They seem to have bought into AGW in a big way, at least in the last couple of years. I have to yell loudly to no one every week it seems.
    Living in Germany, the media is so full of belief that it is really funny some times. Like the story about the large number of wild boars and how that’s because of climate change. Right, I say to my wife, the pigs are _very_ sensitive, they can detect the less than one degree C change thus far and are reproducing wildly as a result. I find it scary to contemplate what the place will look like when the six degree warming hits.

    bob

  23. “What, you mean net glacier melt, mass icecap loss, rising sea level, shifting species, increased ocean heat content, ocean acidification, cooling stratosphere, changing precipitation patterns”

    Net glacier melt: Uhm, turns out that maybe there isn’t as much of that going on as was thought. Maybe not any. In fact, we might be seeing net glacial advance. One particularly worrisome (from the standpoint of science over propaganda) is the bogus reporting by IPCC of the Himalayan glaciers melting:

    The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India’s 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change. It’s not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that Himalayan glaciers �are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.� Evidently, the bogus reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.

    Raina’s report draws on published studies and unpublished findings from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters) a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007 Gangotri has been �practically at a standstill,� according to Raina’s report.

    …

    According to a report in the journal Science, �several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina’s nuanced analysis�even if it clashes with IPCC’s take on the Himalayas.� The �extremely provocative� findings �are consistent with what I have learned independently,� says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have �stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,� he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.

    Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence �challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are �disappearing� quickly and will be gone in 30 years,� said Hewitt. �There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60 years.�

    Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support of Raina’s conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John �Jack� Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC’s Himalaya assessment got it �horribly wrong.� The University of Nebraska researcher adds, �They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data.�

    Greenland apparently isn’t melting either, thought it is widely repeated that it is:

    One of the catastrophic results of global warming always cited by climate change alarmists is the melting of the ice sheets covering Greenland. Some even speculated that global warming had pushed Greenland past a �tipping point� into a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and rapidly rising in sea levels. Now, from the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, comes word that Greenland’s Ice Armageddon has been called off.

    In the late 1990s, streams of ice flowing into the sea from the great Greenland ice sheet had begun speeding up. As the glacial ice faces receded global warming proponents pointed to the shrinking ice cap as proof that catastrophe lay just around the corner. But then came reports of a broad slowdown from a survey of glacier conditions across southeastern Greenland. Researchers reported in 2007 that two of the area’s major outlet glaciers�Helheim and Kangerdlugssuaq�had slowed significantly by the summer of 2006. Then at the 2009 AGU meeting, glaciologist Tavi Murray and ten of her colleagues from Swansea University in the United Kingdom reported the results from their 2007 and 2008 surveys.

    �It has come to an end,� Murray said during a session at the meeting. “There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off ” of the speed-up, she said. Based on the shape and appearance of the 14 largest outlet glaciers in southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000 nearly everywhere. �There’s a pattern of speeding up to maximum velocity and then slowing down since 2005,” Murray reported. �It’s amazing; they sped up and slowed down together. They’re not in runaway acceleration.�

    Glacial modeler Faezeh Nick of Durham University in the UK and her colleagues found similar behvior when they modeled the flow of Helheim Glacier. In their model, as they report recently in Nature Geoscience, Helheim’s flow is extremely sensitive to disturbances at its margin but can quickly adjust. �Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient,� the group writes, �and should not be extrapolated into the future.�

    So add the disappearance of Greanland’s ice cap to the list of bogus �catastrophes� predicted by the global warming pundits, along with rising sea levels, higher temperatures, mass extinctions, and increased hurricane activity. In science, theories are judged by the accuracy with which they predict the behavior of nature. The eco-alarmists have been preaching widespread disaster for more than a quarter of a century and no disaster has occured. It’s time to for scientists to start speaking up, as 650 climate scientists did recently at the UN global warming conference held in Pozan, Poland.

    Mass icecap loss: Huh? Are you talking about the wind event in 2007 that blew much of the old ice in the Arctic out into the Atlantic? It has been recovering nicely. 2008 was bottomed out considerably higher than 2007 and 2009 higher than 2008.

    Sea levels peaked in late 2005 and have been trending sideways since:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg

    Ocean heat content is not increasing. Surface anomaly data shows decreasing temperature trends:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E_SST_thru_Oct_09.jpg

    ARGO which takes temperature at depth is showing flat to slightly decreasing ocean temperatures since 2004.

    Species always “shift” because climate is always changing. The LIA was the coldest period in the Holocene since the Younger Dryas. A lot of species “shifted” during that event. It would be expected they would “shift” again as the climate recovers to warmer temperatures from that event.

    “Ocean acidification” is basically made up. When modern corals first appeared, the atmosphere contained about 5x more CO2 than it does now. Didn’t seem to make a difference, they appeared anyway. Corals love an environment with more CO2, they were raised on it 🙂

    Precipitation patterns also change. Sometimes drastically. Here is a recent paper for you:

    “A multi-proxy paleolimnological reconstruction of Holocene climate conditions in the Great Basin, United States” Reinemann et al Quaternary Research Vol 72 number 3 November 2009

    Why did precipitation patterns suddenly change in Nevada 2000 years ago? Who was to “blame” for that?

    Climate always changes. Precipitation patterns always change. The only constant is change.

    While you tick off each of the standard “talking points” the fact is that they are either not happening or have a history of happening all the time and there is nothing new about them.

    There is no basis in science for saying the glaciers are melting, that the ice caps are disappearing, that the sea levels are rising and the oceans are warming. It isn’t happening. Yes, some models PREDICT that this will happen but the observations don’t seem to back it up. There is a widening divergence between the models and the observations. The usual response of “team members” is to say the observations are wrong and their models are correct. I find that intellectually dishonest.

  24. Uhg, I posted a reply to you, Simon, but it fell into the moderation bucket because it contained a couple of links to graphs. It is also quite long so Lucia might not want it in the comments and apparently it doesn’t like the character used for quotation marks used in some material I quoted.

    Maybe it will come through.

  25. Crosspatch– I changed spam filters because the endless 403s and 505’s seem to be caused, in part, by spamkarma. That’s a great spamfilter, but hasn’t been maintained since January. It may have some problem interacting with the newer update of WordPress. (Or, it may have nothing to do with the problem.)

    The new spamfilter should have presented you with a captcha. Did it?

  26. crosspatch,

    I keep losing replies to 404 glitches or whatever, so at least we share some similar frustrations, howsoever we may disagree otherwise! Hee hee – I think it’s time for a shared drink! Actually, I now have blood all over my keyboard, but that’s a matter which can only be explored further by reference to a Russian FTP server carrying my private email correspondence……

  27. lucia- yes, it presented me with a captcha, I entered the requested text, and then informed me that the post was in moderation.

  29. I find this comment published back in January on the Resilient Earth blog very interesting:

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical,” said atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology. Simpson, formerly of NASA, is the author of more than 190 studies and is among the most preeminent climate scientists. According to Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist and former IPCC member, global warming scaremongering is the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

  30. crosspatch,

    Ok, I now see your post and had written most of a detailed response with references which I lost by means of clicking on a link – d’oh – am still bleeding, so this will be a briefer version:-

    Glaciers: local variations in the Himalayas are well recognised. We’re considering net estimates, please.

    Greenland – you’re referencing changes in the rate of melt. Your supposed conclusion that “Greenland isn’t melting” is just bizarre.

    Ice cap loss – will you please, please stop confusing ice caps with sea ice?! This is the stuff of idiotic newspaper reports, and I can’t be doing with it .

    Sea levels – average rate of rise 93-2008 is 3.4mm/year. You say they peaked’ in 2005 – wow, you know the future!

    Ocean warming – a 50 year warming trend in surface temperatures. 2008 was cooler owing to La Nina.

    Ocean acidification – 30% increase in acidity since 1750.

    Your notion of the climate ‘recovering’ after the LIA is, of course, entirely in conflict with your notion of climate varying all over naturally (recovering to what? Some sort of natural equilibrium? You’re not making sense).

    Too much blood, short version therefore 🙂

  31. “Your supposed conclusion that “Greenland isn’t melting” is just bizarre.”

    Can you give me a link to something that shows a net ice mass loss for Greenland? Everything I am finding recently shows stable to possible slight gain in total ice mass for Greenland.

    “You say they peaked’ in 2005 – wow, you know the future!”

    Of the data available so far observed, sea level peaked in 2005 and has been flat since. It is apparently you who have the crystal ball and are apparently attempting to forecast what sea level will do. That “average rate of rise 93-2008 is 3.4mm/year” includes a period when they were flat for the last three years. All they did was add up the total delta / (number of years) to arrive at a mean per year. It doesn’t mean that sea level *actually rose* 3.4mm each year. It means that over the period of 15 years the average rate of rise was 3.4mm 51.6mm of rise over 15 years = mean of 3.4mm per year. I think you might not fully understand the terminology used in what you are reading.

    “a 50 year warming trend in surface temperatures” I am from Missouri on this one. Show me.

    “Your notion of the climate ‘recovering’ after the LIA is, of course, entirely in conflict with your notion of climate varying all over naturally”

    The comment of “recovery” was in the context of:

    Temperatures were warmer before the LIA. Temperatures dropped to the lowest point in the last 10,000 years during the LIA. After the LIA, temperatures “recovered” to levels closer to (but not quite as warm) as they were before the LIA. So “recovery” in that context means a return to something closer to what they were before the event though temperatures post LIA have apparently not rebounded to the levels seen before the event.

    “30% increase in acidity since 1750”

    Is that a bad thing? Is it harmful in any way to anything? Modern species in the oceans evolved and thrived in atmospheres much richer in CO2 than we have today (a point I tried to make earlier but maybe you missed it). I believe at the end of the last glaciation we had the lowest concentration of CO2 ever in the Earth’s atmosphere. In fact, one of the scenarios of the demise of life on Earth is CO2 depletion. As CO2 is removed due to erosion and converted to insoluble forms and deposited in the sea and as the Earth cools and volcanism decreases, the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere until there isn’t enough for plants to survive. They die off and the animals follow.

    Our returning of naturally sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere might be giving Earth an extension of its life supporting years.

    In any case, I fail to find any real evidence that today’s CO2 levels are harming species that thrived when Earth’s CO2 was many times higher than it is today. Why would CO2 harm them today but not harm them a couple of million years ago? If you have some evidence based on science and not some “journalist” using “could”, “might”, and “possibly” throughout the article, please, I would be interested in reading it.

  32. crosspatch,

    Can you give me a link to something that shows a net ice mass loss for Greenland?

    Hereyago –

    In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

    There is some debate over the extent to which GRACE readings may be underestimating rebound, but that could at reasonable most only account for a percentage of the increase.

    “a 50 year warming trend in surface temperatures” I am from Missouri on this one. Show me.

    Full paper:

    http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf

    Re corals, they have evolved! Too much finger pain to get into typing much – will get back on this if you’re interested – see what you make of the above links anyway.

  33. “We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time”

    Interesting. And I am finding published studies saying exactly the opposite. Not accelerating, pretty much stable to possibly a slight decline was one paper a year ago. So if I see two people saying one thing and two people saying the opposite, then my instinct is to say that whatever is happening, it isn’t happening at enough scale to be obvious. In other words, if this person tilts the data this way, squints, and adjusts the lights like so, ice is decreasing. If the other person tilts it the other way, squints only one eye and adjusts the light the other way, it isn’t.

    So if there was any great obvious loss of ice there would be no way to avoid the reality and everyone would reach the same conclusion. It would be what it is. In this case people on either side of the issue can find something to validate their own conclusions so it just sort of perpetuates the food fight.

    Vicky Pope at the UK Met says the increase in ice loss stopped.
    Tavi Murray of Swansea University says “It has come to an end”
    “Galloping glaciers of Greenland have reined themselves in” Science 23 January 2009
    “Greenland ice sheet slams the brakes on,” NewScientist July 3 2008

    So color me unconvinced. with any certainty either way but I am convinced nothing “drastic” is happening because I believe that would be obvious to everyone if that were the case.

    Ocean warming … oh, met office again.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    ARGO is not recording any temperature rise in the oceans since 2004 by direct measurement of the water to depth. That data is as good as it gets. Actual observations of the data right now with a thermometer is pretty solid data in my opinion.

    But again, nothing drastic is being shown, only flat to slight decline since 2004. Maybe there is a trend over 50 years but there doesn’t seem to be any trend at all over the past 5.

    Again, color me unconvinced. When there is some significant change, everyone will know it and it will be clear, no squinting required.

  34. And as for corals, I am not talking about evolution, I am talking about *modern* coral species that first appeared when CO2 was higher than today.

  35. Simon Evans,

    what, no ad homs?? I guess you only flip out for hard evidence like Chiefio is coming up with.

    Warming IS man made, with statistics.

  36. kuhnkat – What? “Chiefio”? What are you talking about?

    crosspatch, I repeat – you are commenting on commets relating to the pace of Greenland glaciers.

    You asked me for a link and I gave you one. If you have a link to a paper concluding increased ice cap mass (not freakin’ Antarctic sea ice please! Let’s keep on subject!) the please give it. Comments on varying rates of ice mass loss are not pertinent to whether or not we are losing ice cap mass are they?

  37. Pingback: cspawn » Blog Archive » Everybody’s a Nazi!

Comments are closed.