In article , Harry K wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:35=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .=
com, Harry K wrote:

You might mention that that ice is "first year ice", there is almost
no "old ice" left up there. In 2008 or 2009 (didn't keep the cite) a
ice breakers made it all the way to the pole.

So one year in which the North Pole is free of ice is evidence in favor of
global warming, but one year (right now) with record-breaking cold weather is
not evidence against it. Riiiiiiiight.

The eveidence of decreasing ice is not a "one year" thing. I cited
that as proof of the North Polar ice cap thinning and decreasing as
has been proven over at least a couple of decades in spite of all the
denials of the evidence.

You've apparently missed the article that's been posted several times already
in this ng -- IIRC, in this thread -- citing concern over disappearing Arctic
ice -- in 1922.

You can't have it both ways: if a short-term condition is not evidence against
global warming, then a different short-term condition is not evidence for it
either.

And you totally miss that my cite is not a 'one year thing' but proof
of what has been happening.

No, it's not. It's a cite of something that happened _one_time_.

That has never been possible before.

Cite?

Typicl denialist tactic,

Typical leftist tactic: demonize your opponents.

ask someone to prove a negative. It is you
who have to prove the positive.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. You made the
claim, you back it up. It's not up to me to disprove your claims, it's up to
you to prove them.


Also 3 common freighters made the trip West to East
across the top of Russia without the aid of ice breakers - again never
been possible before.

Cite? (In both cases, I don't mean cite proof that this happened -- I mean
cite proof that it's never been possible before.)

See above and study up on common logic used in debate. It is
impossibel to prove a negative.

You made the claims, you back them up. Or retract them. Your choice.

Your post is just another example of denier dishonesty - not showing
the whole picture.

And your post is just another example of global warming proponents' dishonesty
- puffing up the evidence that supports your position, and discounting or
ignoring the evidence that opposes it.

So show where I did any 'puffing up' or dishonest citing such as the
denialiest commonly do.

I already did, Harry: I pointed out that you're citing a one-time event as
"proof" of your position, but ignoring a different one-time event that
contradicts it.