View Single Post
Old 12-22-2008, 07:43 PM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Silver Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987

@Peter : Frankly i find you objections to my comments incomprehensible. After re-reading them i cannot understand what is unacceptable to you under the normal rules of "good debate". If you or others were to take my comments "personally", please understand that they are not aimed at anyone here specifically (unless so noted); and especially not aimed at those like yourself who practice good debate etiquette. They are nearly always aimed at the audience in general... And this is how it should be. "Personalizing" debate is a mistake that leads to misunderstanding. It should be about exploring BOTH SIDES of an issue... Giving the readers interesting things to think about. And this is what i strive for (lol, especially here in this thread, when it appears i am nearly alone on this issue ).

My calling out of "bad" debate tactics, such as ad hominems or "straw men", is a calculated... And highly effective... Response to the use of such tactics. In my strong opinion and wide experience, these tactics should always be called when seen. It is a shame that debate has lowered itself to such a degree in this country, that many young people think this is the way it is supposed to be done. It is not!! Lol you could say i'm on a crusade for "better debate

Here is my general philosophy on Debate: One should view the opponents' well-made comments and points as a challenge, and in fact an opportunity to make more arguments and debate points yourself. This is as it should be. It should not be about personalities. Nor should the "debater" tie comments in to their own self-worth, ego, or sense of honor. Those who use ad homenims should either be simply ignored, or called on the carpet for it (as i prefer; to point out to the audience the attempts at sophistic manipulation). Those who make valid and thought-provoking points should never be threatened or silenced. There is always room for more than one opinion on a good forum!

If i have offended anyone, it was unintentional. However i make no apologies for my arguments, and i will likely continue to make them . Not to "get in the last word", but to insure that this side of the issue is fully examined as well.

But i would ask that in the future, if you have a problem with my comments, that you please be more specific... As i am honestly at a loss to understand your point of view here.

You should know by now of the high regard and respect i hold for you... We may disagree on this issue but this means very little to me, i've spent my life in disagreement with nearly everyone i know lol


The use of month-to-month, current years' figures for ice levels is "fraught with peril" lol. Take for example the article that Ash linked. In the below link, they mention that Sept. and Oct. levels were indeed higher than last year's; essentially confirming the other "Telegraph" article.

However... They then go on to note that since then the trend has completely reversed.

This is why the only accurate and reliable data is from the previous years' average (as NASA and others use). Another and better measurement is using only the ice that survived the previous' years melt; which helps eliminate seasonal aberrations (...and this is a major reason why the previous year's measurements should be used). Since the advent of satellites, this ice level data has been extremely accurate. And there is apparently no question that "2007" was a another bad year for sea ice melt: But we must wait for this time next year to analyze "2008" properly.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Another problem with understanding what's really happening with ice levels is "thickness". For many years, according to the data the average thicknesses of the solid-ice sheets have been lowering. I remember last year, the big red herring from the "GW-Denial" side was the claim that "Greenland and Antarctic ice grew in size". Upon examination, these claims were found to utterly bogus. There was indeed increased snow fall, however... But snow is several times less dense than ice. So in fact the total amount of "captured moisture" was much lower. Yet i heard those claims over and over (... until the summer months came, and erased away all of that easily-melted top levels of snow ).

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today
Reply With Quote