How about your all full of it and its the same game but with not one of you that has anything. Humans will drill all for money! A 1000 years from now..........you lot are going to look like twits.

Blue

There is an article in the New York Times that is worth reading.

'As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html?_r=2&ref=global-home

Now these are scientists at the ice face doing actual research.

And these and the previous posting I think put paid to this opinion piece as not based on facts.

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/2010/articles/report_notes_ice_receding.html

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/24/greenland-melting-noaa-2010-arctic-report-card/

I repeat.....

Yes I know the denialists will come out in droves bleating that it is all diabolical plot and there is no evidence or even that the evidence is the other way but…..
Surely if there is any chance that this report is correct. We should be alarmed?

As you say Squeers, you are obtuse, and further comment on your nonsense is not warranted.

Peter A, if you read the article, to which you supplied the link, you will see that it has no basis in science, and the comments are obviously limited to those who make comments favourable to unscientific nonsense. This is typical of the dishonesty of alarmist sites. The fairness available on OLO is completely absent in the promotion of the AGW fraud.

sarnian, as I pointed out, in detail, in a previuos post, there is no possible justification for what you said in the first place, much less for repeating it.

Cliff Ollier's article has a sound factual and scientific base which is lost on the alarmists, who are interested only in repeating unsustainable nonsense.

There is no scientific basis for AGW, because it has been shown that the effect of human emissions is negligible, and has no measurable effect. We cannot control or affect the climate.

The data from the satellite instruments ended the IPCC's prospects of misleading us with estimates that the satellite data has demonstrated to be exaggerated and incorrect.

If any of you have any scientific basis for saying otherwise, then respond with the science upon which you rely, instead of with fatuous and substance deficient remarks. The IPCC has failed, to find any such science, but you are welcome to have a try.

Dear Leo Lane (and motley crew),
it is you that is obtuse. If you have anything intelligent to say, I shall comment. But if you're just going to be a bunch of noisy Galahs I'll leave you to it.
BTW did anyone happen to catch this segment on Breakfast this a.m?
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/breakfast_item&d=rn/breakfast/audio/items&r=bst_15112010_0810.ram&w=bst_15112010_0810.asx&t=Who%20is%20driving%20the%20campaign%20against%20climate%20science?%20-%2015%20November%202010

Well I never!