Article? It is hard to have a discussion with someone who lacks common sense and sees this as a google card game, where one link trumps the next, winning the hand.
Why did you put a link to an article in WUWT if you don't want to make any use of it?
My quote does not come out of the article, idiot! Had you read my quote and the article you would of realized that.
So, you accuse me of lying, then attach a link to a WUWT article, then add some text in italics.
You have called me a liar, in particular a "filthy liar" on numerous occasions now, yet not ONCE have you ever actually identified
any lie you believe I have told.
You posted a link to a WUWT article immediately after your accusation yet now, after I have pointed out that the article isn't worth its weight in used TP, you abandon it and claim that I should have found the unnamed source for the quote you posted WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKINGS AND WITHOUT IDENTIFYING ITS SOURCE in the
comments to the WUWT article and then visited the two links
within that comment. Get fucking real.
Crick is to be busy trying to discredit everything that upsets crick's fragile opinion.
The point of this entire forum is to address the on-topic content of each others posts. Why don't you tell management that they've got that all wrong and need to start doing things your way.
What is notable, is there was no records of temperature before 1958. Very little is known about the Antarctica.
You left out a critical adjective. There are no CONTINUOUS temperature records from Antarctica prior to 1958. At least so says someone making a comment to a WUWT article.
What is great about wattsupwiththat is the comments by researchers, scientists, and engineers.
The author of the article to which you linked - Paul Homewood - is a retired accountant who has no climate science education or experience whatsoever.
I quoted a comment inspired by the article that includes two fascinating links.
But you not only failed to properly identify its source, you failed to even identify it as a quotation.
View attachment 811251
And yes, crick, again your opinion based on google, is wrong.
Good fucking god you are stupid. The only information I get from Google is the URLs of pertinent sites. And I have had WUWT come up many times in Google. So I guess you're getting your info the same way I am but for some reason you think we're getting different results.
wattsupwiththat.com certainly spells it out clearly.
Did you find your Paul Homewood article clearly spelling out ANYTHING?
Crick, you need to read the quote I provided, and understand that the quote did not come from the article.
Then why was the article link there, why wasn't the quote in quotation marks and why wasn't its actual source identified? You've got some fucking nerve to get on my case when, among a dozen other topics, you seem to have failed English Composition 101.
Articles are presented on wattsupwiththat.com where a variety of experts and or regular people comment with great links to science. That is the intelligence of wattsupwiththat.com
Bullshit. You will find no articles by anyone who accepts the conclusions of the IPCC. That rules out a very large portion of the available sources they might use. You will find no articles by anyone who believes that the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, BEST, Hadley or the JMA properly handle UHIs. Very, VERY few active researchers write anything for WUWT. Their most prolific author is a fucking massage therapist.
Abstract. Over recent decades Antarctic sea-ice extent has increased, alongside widespread ice shelf thinning and freshening of waters along the Antarctic margin. In contrast, Earth system models generally simulate a decrease in sea ice. Circulation of water masses beneath large-cavity ice...
cp.copernicus.org
A day late and a dollar short. And if you think this article refutes scientist's concern at the loss of Antarctic sea ice for the last two years, you need to ask someone that graduated high school to explain it to you.