Got it .ship got stuck in ice.
Ship broke breaking ice.Captain expected less ice.

Foghorn said..
Got it .ship got stuck in ice.
Ship broke breaking ice.Captain expected less ice.

deniers have to lie.

Chris 249 said..
1- No, you have not provided any "factual evidence for your generalisations". Any claim that the views of a single poster on a single site is "factual evidence" of the beliefs held by millions of other people is illogical and unscientific; unless of course you've just decided to define "the left" in your own terms and in a way that suits your argument.

The left" is generally used as a broad label. If you are going to define "the left" separately and not tell anyone what the group is defined as, then it's all pretty nonsensical. "Sceptics" and "denialists" are much narrower terms in a discussion about AGW.

2- Impossible to comment since you have provided no definition of "the left" and who you know exactly what every single member of that group thinks.

4- "People who publicly write about politics as Schmidt and Heathers do would be called "the left" by many, probably most, people.
They are evidence that there ARE people who are quite strongly members of the political left who clearly DO place a very high value on good science. At least one of them has said that "deniers" SHOULD be listened to as that is part of science. You appear to simply be defining "the left" as it suits you in to slide away from the truth, which is that left-leaning scientists do NOT all try to stifle debate as you claim "the left" does.

5- A reasonable observer can see easily that you praise pollies from the right, and lump a modern polly from the left with murderous dictators and suspect that you are from the right or a rather militant version of the centre. Your later blanket abuse of "progressives" seems to make it pretty obvious that you are actually biased, but sometimes try to hide it - perhaps even from yourself.

I've explained myself a couple of times, I'm not going through the same thing over and over.

As for 5, you're doing exactly the same thing I got on log jam's case for. If you want to take my comments at him personally, that's your bag baby.

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
1- No, you have not provided any "factual evidence for your generalisations". Any claim that the views of a single poster on a single site is "factual evidence" of the beliefs held by millions of other people is illogical and unscientific; unless of course you've just decided to define "the left" in your own terms and in a way that suits your argument.

The left" is generally used as a broad label. If you are going to define "the left" separately and not tell anyone what the group is defined as, then it's all pretty nonsensical. "Sceptics" and "denialists" are much narrower terms in a discussion about AGW.

2- Impossible to comment since you have provided no definition of "the left" and who you know exactly what every single member of that group thinks.

4- "People who publicly write about politics as Schmidt and Heathers do would be called "the left" by many, probably most, people.
They are evidence that there ARE people who are quite strongly members of the political left who clearly DO place a very high value on good science. At least one of them has said that "deniers" SHOULD be listened to as that is part of science. You appear to simply be defining "the left" as it suits you in to slide away from the truth, which is that left-leaning scientists do NOT all try to stifle debate as you claim "the left" does.

5- A reasonable observer can see easily that you praise pollies from the right, and lump a modern polly from the left with murderous dictators and suspect that you are from the right or a rather militant version of the centre. Your later blanket abuse of "progressives" seems to make it pretty obvious that you are actually biased, but sometimes try to hide it - perhaps even from yourself.

I've explained myself a couple of times, I'm not going through the same thing over and over.

As for 5, you're doing exactly the same thing I got on log jam's case for. If you want to take my comments at him personally, that's your bag baby.

Come on man.....show the courage of your convictions. Grow a couple.

log man said..
Come on man.....show the courage of your convictions. Grow a couple.

I spelled it out in crayon several times and you still didn't get it.

Enough for me, thanks.

petermac33 said..
www.sott.net/article/420383-Setting-the-stage-for-climate-sickness-Global-warming-hoax-leaves-authorities-unprepared-to-address-potential-health-crisis-from-extremes-of-cold

As a matter of interest, why do you believe Dr Sircus's article?

kilo54 said..
One is reminded of the first "Ship of Fools" from Australia which attempted to land where Ausssie explorer, Mawson, had landed a century ago on Antarctica.
They never got within 100kms of the mainland! While exploring, for about 2 hours, a rocky islet, the ship was entombed in thick ice - the VERY ice the expedition claimed no longer existed. The oaf of a leader stood on deck eyeing the thick ice all around, "See! No ice!!" Spittle drooled from his slack jaw. $15m later, most of the fartless passengers had been helicoptered to safety, leaving the luckless Russian crew to have a huge party with lots of vodka and ICE..........the average ice thickness in Antarctica is 11,000ft, and is growing.

Those who ran that expedition may have made mistakes and may even be twits , but that doesn't mean that you should be able to get away with your dishonest rant.

Lie 1 - "They never got within 100kms of the mainland!"

Truth - the ship was just off the Hodgeman Islands, just 4 nautical miles from the mainland. As the AAD says, " near Mawson's Huts at Commonwealth Bay" which is of course on the mainland. Expedition members created a new path to the huts themselves. Here's a shot of the position of the ships involved, ironically from a climate sceptic's website. See how close the ship (marked as Akademik) is to the continent?


Lie 2 - The ship was stuck in "the VERY ice the expedition claimed no longer existed".

Truth - the aims of the expedition were;

"gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle;
explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay;
use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past;
investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands;
discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay;
understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay;
produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay;
determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica;
provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future"

No one says ice "no longer exists" and you are a liar for claiming that. The expedition in fact wanted to study GROWTH in some ice, because part of the AGW theory is that variation in climate (not just warming) will increase.

To give them credit, one of the expedition leaders (who may very well have caused the problem by being slow to re-board the ship) said "Let's be clear. Us becoming locked in ice was not caused by climate change. Instead it seems to have been an aftershock of the arrival of iceberg B09B which triggered a massive reconfiguration of sea ice in the area." He may have been the cause of the problem but at least he was honest. You, on the other hand.......


Lie 3 - "$15m later......" No, the claimed cost appears to be $2.5mill. www.themercury.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes

You're wrong six times over.

The rest is just a rant. Your lies may be irrelevant but they just prove that you are untrustworthy, unreliable, and unreasonable. If your case was a strong one, you would not have to lie.

boofta said..
My modelling suggests there is no such thing as climate change.
I have renamed it WEATHER.
The problem is that the human population has quadrupled in my lifetime
Too much stress on the planet, too many people, causing the earth's crust to
distort as they all walk around. We need a serious culling and pronto!.

how about just some education on birth control and some minor cultural tweaks, showing how good 2 or 3 children per family would be. The future problems and environmental stress in india, asia, Africa and south America could be averted. Impacts of climate, food, water and resource shortages would be less and they wouldn't become refugees.

Chris 249 said..

Those who ran that expedition may have made mistakes and may even be twits , but that doesn't mean that you should be able to get away with your dishonest rant.

Lie 1 - "They never got within 100kms of the mainland!"

Truth - the ship was just off the Hodgeman Islands, just 4 nautical miles from the mainland. As the AAD says, " near Mawson's Huts at Commonwealth Bay" which is of course on the mainland. Expedition members created a new path to the huts themselves. Here's a shot of the position of the ships involved, ironically from a climate sceptic's website. See how close the ship (marked as Akademik) is to the continent?


Lie 2 - The ship was stuck in "the VERY ice the expedition claimed no longer existed".

Truth - the aims of the expedition were;

"gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle;
explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay;
use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past;
investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands;
discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay;
understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay;
produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay;
determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica;
provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future"

No one says ice "no longer exists" and you are a liar for claiming that. The expedition in fact wanted to study GROWTH in some ice, because part of the AGW theory is that variation in climate (not just warming) will increase.

To give them credit, one of the expedition leaders (who may very well have caused the problem by being slow to re-board the ship) said "Let's be clear. Us becoming locked in ice was not caused by climate change. Instead it seems to have been an aftershock of the arrival of iceberg B09B which triggered a massive reconfiguration of sea ice in the area." He may have been the cause of the problem but at least he was honest. You, on the other hand.......


Lie 3 - "$15m later......" No, the claimed cost appears to be $2.5mill. www.themercury.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes

You're wrong six times over.

The rest is just a rant. Your lies may be irrelevant but they just prove that you are untrustworthy, unreliable, and unreasonable. If your case was a strong one, you would not have to lie.

I'm really enjoying these rational rebuttals!

To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..
And yes, you can still agree with the IPCC or the UN or NASA or whatever you like ... and STILL insist that folks like Cook need to do the ****ing science properly.

Cook published. Peers reviewed and criticised it.

The data, how he used it, and the resulting graphs are in question. There is much debate about it.

That's proper science.

"The lefties" pointing out that there are many, many, many other studies and papers out there, and the vast majority of them, be it 90, 95, or 97 percent, still point to man-made global warming is a very fair argument. The data "overwhelmingly" points to man made causes. No, it's not 100%, but that doesn't disprove it. Far from. We don't see "overwhelming" data saying it is not man made.

What I fear, actually, is that Global Warming, as important an issue as it is, is forcing other just as important environmental issues to take a bit of a back seat, while people argue about petty things, like egos.

For instance the very real possibility of ecological collapse, as we wipe out species after species (no food). Or, the vast deforestation that still continues unabated. Or, the other types of pollution. Or, that we're starting to run out of water (no water).

Is man ****ing the environment up? Yes. D'uh.

Actually, man doing well. Our air cleaner, 600 counts in London in 1900, 15 today; Vancouver, BC just 5.
Less aerosols means less cloud, more heat. 200 times the forcing of CO2.
Add the variation in the number of Cosmic Rays caused by variations in the Sun's protective shield. CR also nucleate (forms) clouds. I am the author of "Cosmic Ray induced radio nuclides (like C14) and their uses in Oceanography." Since then, Be10 now used to show the Sun's heat variation - overall just 1% but 20% in some wavelengths. Be very uncommon (used in nuke bombs), so little chance of contamination as with C14.

Gentlemen (and ladies!) we are wasting money and resources........in BC, $20bn spent on "run of the river" alt. energy. Only trouble? Hm? It works mainly during the Spring freshet when dams bursting, so the energy is NEVER used...........have $15m windmill on mountain overlooking the city - it rarely turns. Why? Instead of placing it where it is windy, they wanted to show it off, to be very visible. In its 25 year life will make just $200K, and it sheds bullets of ice on the luckless skiers below. Well done. Wasting money AND dangers too! First prize.
........ and "Ship of Fools" (Mawson replica expedition) caused 3 countries including Australia to cancel their experiments that year. Well done Chris, old boy!
Depo- provera for ALL Afric

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
Amazing how middle age floods are still in the top 10 given our exponential documentation and population growth.
Pretty sure Noah complained about climate change, yet nobody listened...

Bcos we all know CO2 is a blanket...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth

kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.

Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?

I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.

Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.

Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.

I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.

On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.

Chris 249 said..

kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.

Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?

I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.

Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.

Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.

I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.

On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.

I read that it was 100km. That MAY be a mistake, but certainly NOT a lie. Logic, old boy.
You prat on about $1.5m cost; others say $2.4m, AND "porky pie-lie, how about costing the 3 expeditions that were cancelled 'cos of you and your slack arses?" France, China, Australia not happy with you, and Oz now sending you the invoice I hear......don't get your balls in a knot, that is MY info, wrong tho' it may be.
How do you answer CO2 "saturation"? Being logarithmic. Know what they are? Hm?
And do you think cloud cover affects temp? For all our sakes, read John D. Maclean's PhD, "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study on the decrease in world cloud cover, 1986 to 2009." He should get the Nobel and may well do so. Australia should be VERY proud of his meticulous work.
John, I salute you.

Your whole attitude is like you have been doing cocaine the night before!! Snappy, cranky, bitchy; avoiding issues; repeating "lies. lies, lies."
And try pulling hard G in a Meteor - "Mayday, mayday, mayday. Fanstop both engines. Unable to get out, will try and put her down."
10+ second throttle lag, but so smooth compared to pistons.
Look, Chis, would rather be friends than enemies.
My schooling cost $500K. (Beaten on my last day. We have won 2 Court cases against the swine that ran the school.) i am fairly bright, did fast 2 year course at Uni..........."CO2 is only a very MINOR player in GW. HALF of the claimed temp rise JUST from changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints. 0.7F alone diff. NOAA so busy changing temps, BUT NOT smart enough to change 'number of days over 100F etc'

Why so DEVOTED to CO2? Wot made the Roman and Medieval Warm periods so warm? (Ah, yes. Nissan factory in the Colosseum! Hm?)
You MUST have a vested interest, no?

kilo54 said..

Chris 249 said..

kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.

Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?

I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.

Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.

Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.

I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.

On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.

I read that it was 100km. That MAY be a mistake, but certainly NOT a lie. Logic, old boy.
You prat on about $1.5m cost; others say $2.4m, AND "porky pie-lie, how about costing the 3 expeditions that were cancelled 'cos of you and your slack arses?" France, China, Australia not happy with you, and Oz now sending you the invoice I hear......don't get your balls in a knot, that is MY info, wrong tho' it may be.
How do you answer CO2 "saturation"? Being logarithmic. Know what they are? Hm?
And do you think cloud cover affects temp? For all our sakes, read John D. Maclean's PhD, "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study on the decrease in world cloud cover, 1986 to 2009." He should get the Nobel and may well do so. Australia should be VERY proud of his meticulous work.
John, I salute you.

Your whole attitude is like you have been doing cocaine the night before!! Snappy, cranky, bitchy; avoiding issues; repeating "lies. lies, lies."
And try pulling hard G in a Meteor - "Mayday, mayday, mayday. Fanstop both engines. Unable to get out, will try and put her down."
10+ second throttle lag, but so smooth compared to pistons.
Look, Chis, would rather be friends than enemies.
My schooling cost $500K. (Beaten on my last day. We have won 2 Court cases against the swine that ran the school.) i am fairly bright, did fast 2 year course at Uni..........."CO2 is only a very MINOR player in GW. HALF of the claimed temp rise JUST from changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints. 0.7F alone diff. NOAA so busy changing temps, BUT NOT smart enough to change 'number of days over 100F etc'

Why so DEVOTED to CO2? Wot made the Roman and Medieval Warm periods so warm? (Ah, yes. Nissan factory in the Colosseum! Hm?)
You MUST have a vested interest, no?

I'm not avoiding the issue - I'm demonstrating that your claims are false and therefore your other claims are equally likely to be false. And for heaven's sake - how in the name of honesty can you write a post that speaks of "oaf of a leader .........Spittle drooled from his slack jaw. ....... fartless passengers" and then complain about my rhetoric? If you want measured, reasoned discussions then don't start off with an insulting rant.

I said in my fourth and fifth lines that you may have been careless or ignorant, rather than a liar. That is hardly any better, considering how unethical it is to abuse someone based on ignorance or carelessness. Here's a tip- don't insult people carelessly or dishonestly.

If you "would rather be friends than enemies" then admit your post was as at the very least careless. The ship was NOT 100km from the continent or anything like it. The ship was NOT stuck in "the VERY ice the expedition claimed no longer existed"; it didn't claim no ice existed, nor was it studying the type of ice it became stuck in. Nor did the recovery cost $15 million.

You go on about your education but two years at uni doing another subject does not qualify you to judge Nobel prize winners and specialists in the field related to AGW. And since you have proven that some of your "facts" are out by a factor of ten, you have little credibility.MacLean's PhD, it has been pointed out, infers that clouds are a forcing mechanism in global warming and not a symptom.

No, I have no vested interest. Yes, there have been previous warming and cooling cycles as in the Roman era, but the current warming cycle is apparently driven by different factors.

I note that you have no response to the fact that your praise of global warming ignores the problems it can cause in hotter areas and low-lying areas, and that you only appear to consider the places where Europeans live when considering its effects.