Well Q&A if the pro AGW people can point to less sea ice one year,
why can't the anti-AGW people point to more sea ice the next year ?

Whenever there is a symptom that indicates that AGW might well be
happening it is shouted from every media rooftop.
Whenever there is a symptom that indicates that AGW may not be
happening any mention of it is jumped on immediately that you can't
take notice of short term changes.

It all sounds like pro AGW people feel very insecure in their conviction.

Q&A: “global warming is a hoax to (sic) we’re doomed…”

You say “stop telling me what you think I believe in.” Could you point out where I said hoax.

“I thank the powers that be you’re not a major player, stake holder or decision maker.”

I pray to same if you are.

On my “churlish” comments, my apologies. I interpreted your justification of anonymity in freeing you from political correctness as an invitation.

“As you don’t respect me (the feeling is becoming more and more mutual) there really is no point in having any further dialogue with you – agreed.”

Well, if by that you mean “please leave me alone to continue making unsubstantiated defamatory comments”, er, no, not agreed. I’m not letting you off the hook. Whether you “respond” (ha) is up to you.

As for ‘further (ha) dialogue’, there’s hardly been any as you have amply demonstrated your lack of capacity for it. You protect what appears to be a perilously fragile ego by interpreting anyone who disagrees with you as either in denial or as a personal attack. As others have stated here, alarmists use the word denial to bully and deny others a voice. It annihilates the possibility of dialogue.

So, in addition to Col Rouge –

“despite my repeated request for your to illustrate when and where I have posted a misguided statement”

And IanC’s delightful -

“I'm happy to agree that I'm a senior, but at this point I don't know about the senior moments that you tell me I've had lately. Maybe I have a problem - can you please let me know what senior moments you have in mind?”

I add -

Could you please show me where I am “telling [you] what [I] think [you] believe.” The only example I can think of was using your own words about Nobels for AGW debunkers (to date unacknowledged.) If I have elsewhere, please point out, and if I have lapsed, and believe it is warranted I will acknowledge it.

Dialogue. (ha) Substantiate or retract if you have any kahunas to speak of.

Bazz

This chart from the National Snow and Ice Centre (previously linked) should make it easier to understand.

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

or this from the Polar Research Group in the Department of Atmospheric Physics at the Uni of Illinois:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

If the trend continues then Arctic summer sea ice will be an oddity within 50 years.

Notwithstanding, the loss of summer sea ice does NOT mean the Arctic will be ice free in winter.

Both you and Cowboy mention short term changes. Insofar as climate science is concerned, winter to summer or conversely, summer to winter, is not climate change. A fact many lay people fail to appreciate (I am dumbfounded as to understand why) – seasonal weather change is 'noise'. We have to look at longer time scales (seen in the graphs above).

As I tried to explain (poorly?) - the reason we are seeing this trend is related to changes in the atmosphere and in the oceans. The situation exacerbated by the enhanced greenhouse effect, Northern Hemisphere aerosol pollution and positive feedback from reduced albedo, amongst other things.

No, didn't think you did.

"Substantiate or retract if you have any kahunas to speak of."

WOW, and a deafening silence resonated throughout the thread.