And the difference is?pg55555 said:Typical rubbish from the "antis"/"deniers"/whatevers - they, deliberately and knowingly - mix upclimate and weather.
It merely shows their ability at PR and spin rather than science. IF they want to challenge the science, then fine - but merely trying to con people with puff pieces like that just shows how dishonest or scientific illiterate they are.
Repeat after me "weather" does not equate to "climate".
You may want to read the article again then, they are doubting the validity of data, if you go to the link I added you will see that GISS has somewhat of a history of unreliable data!pg55555 said:No it isn't.
It is taking a genuine (as far as the article is concerned) error and is trying to invalidate the whole of Climate Science !..............................
Anytme you get near one of these "antis"/"denyers"/whatevers, just ask them why they aren't actually challenging the Climate Change supporters in scientific debate - you won't get an answer.
Probably because the mean Earth temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees C since 1880 which is the basis for sea ice observation. There is good news though, October saw the fastest seasonal increase in ice growth in the history of satellite imagery: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8285Crabman said:Chieftiff, that's an interesting link, however it doesn't answer the question why is so much ice melting? There is enough documentation made over decades to prove that the ice is melting in the Alps, the Artic, in the Andes and elsewhere. Large amounts have gone. Dramatic climatic changes are almost as old as the Earth, so is this change just a part of normal circumstances or man made or a bit of both? Whatever the answer, climate change is here. A reletively minor stats c0ck up does nothing to change the situation. Lies, damn lies and statistics?
Unfortunately you will have to read the information below the pictures, sea ice imagery is not what you think it is (photographs) they are combinations of images taken at different wavelengths and combined to give a more accurate image, October 2008 isn't illustrated yet.tommo said:Those sat images are a year out. I can't find any from this year
I'm an "anti". I don't need to enter into any scientific debate, because thousands of scientists already do that on my behalf. To dismiss scientific opinion (oxymoron, surely?) because it is expressed by those who do not specialise in climate matters is ludicrous.pg55555 said:Anytme you get near one of these "antis"/"denyers"/whatevers, just ask them why they aren't actually challenging the Climate Change supporters in scientific debate - you won't get an answer.