“non-violent direct action” is a standard euphemism for destruction of others’ private property.

Like standing outside the headquarters of a West Virginian company holding a placard which read “Yes, Coal’s Killing West Virginian Communities” (and it’s posssible that even you Steve would have reservations over Appalachian mountain-top removal).

Four young activists were arrested for trespass two months later (without trespass warning) and held in police custody without bail overnight pending court apppearance.

Trespass is a very common kind of non-violent direct action. I have been guilty of it myself (without consequence) and congratulated a member of my family on his arrest for the offence. Your precious private property is hardly destroyed by such action.

Suppose the cancer was one that is known to respond well to a particular treatment, although the exact mechanism is still uncertain; would you still refuse to be treated?

Of course you would, or else you would be nothing more than a hypocritical troll, right?

Huh?, and you claimed I had a lot to learn. Good one.

“I agree that the mediaum term (30 year) trend in Artic is for warming, but you should not post mis-leading graphs.” -C3.

It seems you are the only one mislead by the graph. It’s very darn clear to me.

This some kind of upside-down denier logic?.

“I am regretting using the term now anyway” – c3.

Indeed.

“what I meant is why is 3 years considered long enough to show a trend of warming but not cooling?. After all one could claim that Arctic sea ice is growing since 2007, however I would agree that it is not a long enough time frame to not be considered noise.Why the same logic would not apply to the Antarctic is what I can not understand.”

You are confused, the trends are not of warming per se, but of estimates of ice mass/volume/extent. The findings are significant because they show the melting response is happening far quicker than projections. The climate model predictions of accumulated ice mass in Antarctica through increased snowfall, have proven to be very short lived.

With the “warming in the pipeline” due to inertia in the climate system, and the accelerating rate of glacier discharge, none of that land ice is coming back any time soon.

Oh, and a couple of additional points:

- 2007 was the record Arctic summer sea extent minima. So there have been 2 years of gains in extent. 2008 was a record sea ice volume, despite the gains in extent i.e. the sea ice was a lot thinner. Haven’t found the 2009 volume, so don’t know if that has increased too.

- Context is the key here, the 5 lowest Arctic summer sea ice extents have been in the last 5 years, and ice mass from the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated in the last few years. Not good news for deniers of reality.

Seventy years ago, there was much that was not understood about the details of Nazi plans for Europe, but their overall direction was sufficiently clear for the Allies to “waste” enormous quantities of blood and treasure in opposing them.

Aren’t you glad they did, Steve?

I am regretting using the term now anyway, what I meant is why is 3 years considered long enough to show a trend of warming but not cooling? After all one could claim that Arctic sea ice is growing since 2007, however I would agree that it is not a long enough time frame to not be considered noise.

Why the same logic would not apply to the Antarctic is what I can not understand.

If you read carefully I never try and say the Artic is not warming recently.

And thank you for admitting that “…our observation systems aren’t adequate to comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system”. Why waste trillions on the delusion that we can have any discernable, mitigatory effect on such a poorly understood system?

Please at least learn the meaning of Godwin’s law before you start throwing the term around.

“You’re right it’s arrogant to assume what’s best for the next generation. ”

Sam, the point I’ve been making is that I don’t agree with assuming we know what’s right for our descendants 100 years or more in the future, NOT “the next generation”, and the published science is not certain about how damaging AGW is going to be that far out.

“Why not toss your abundant supply of straw-men on the compost, that’ll be much more useful.”

I think Rob used the straw-man in suggesting that the Nazi’s could be used as an example to argue against my position after I had made it clear that Nazism is too recent to be applicable.

Interesting tidbit..