Report says Arctic temperatures at record highs

Pardon me, but in another report I read today it stated that one of the major Alaskan glaciers expanded this year for the first time since the mid 1700s. (By quite a large amount for a year) Two points of interest here. Since the glaciers have been decreasing each year since the mid 1700s, a time before AGW could be blamed, the explanation that we are just in a period of recovery from the little ice age makes a lot more sense than AGW. Also, note that this story refers to 2007, the year BEFORE this exceptionally cold year of 2008 in Alaska.

Arctic sea ice is 28.7% above the area of this date 2007.Recovery is already above 2005 levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com

climate is about multi annual averages and trends. The trends are clear and can not be denied.

climate is about multi annual averages and trends. The trends are clear and can not be denied.

Yes, the trends are very clear. There is nothing wrong with the current climate cycle according to those very same trends when you look at a large enough slice of time.

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

Maybe they'll like this fact.

When applying heat to a heterogenous system the greatest effect will be concentrated in the driest, coolest regions of the system.

So when you warm the earth, the driest, coolest regions, (the artic, antartic, australia), will see the greatest change.

climate is about multi annual averages and trends. The trends are clear and can not be denied.

Well what about this from Anchorage Daily News (http://www.mcclat...4.html):
"Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008."

Or you could try Dr. Keen's "Global Warming Quiz" at http://atoc.color...050/1050 ppt/Global warming quiz.ppt.

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.

In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.

Thanks Excalibur for proving my point.

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.

In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.

You want to explain the 1 i got then?

ALL the facts in 1 place, not just 1 data point or selected data like this report:

http://www.americ...u_1.html

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.

In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.

You want to explain the 1 i got then?

Which particular "1" would that be?

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.

In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.

You want to explain the 1 i got then?

Which particular "1" would that be?

Anyone who breings an opinion you disagreee with gets an auto spam warning from you. Great way to create a proper debate and inject information into the discussion, start it off as hostilly as possible.

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

I gave you a "1" for cherry-picking a popular soundbite from big oil's global warming denialism blogosphere.

I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

I gave you a "1" for cherry-picking a popular soundbite from big oil's global warming denialism blogosphere.

And you got a 1 for repeating the same rhetoric that has been proven inaccurate time and time again.

You do know the IPCC has received donations from Exxon, British Petroleum, and the House of Saud, right? Guess you didn't. Oh well, by your own logic AGW is full of it as well, afterall, some of their money came from big oil.