Haig and Arnold Martin have the same old kind of harmless arguments, a mix of fantasy and ambulance chaser rhetoric in a low level. AM, by copypasta of texts being it really his personal version of the "Like" button disguised as some sort of endorsement; Haig by championing epistemological hedonism and seeing what s/he wants to see, like the failed interpretation of Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, as if we hadn't enough contemporary instances of warmed high latitudes along with unusually cold mid latitudes, besides the fact of getting cores from the regions where ice was meant to stay and not to vanish. Is it possible some critical comment about figure 4 in the linked page above? Is it possible to include variations in ice levels and circulation change owing to the very fresh water and iceberg flushes this is supposed to evidence for?
So far, the same old ****, where these would-be "lawyers", inspired by watching Perry Mason reruns, apply the adversarial system logic as if it is related to science and try to deal with each thin individual thread that makes the extremely thick rope which ties AGW to the current climate as if their objections were breaking a link in a chain and making it all fall apart. The fact that they can't even identify a valid objection makes the whole scene even more sad. The last germ of a valid objection that I remember here was an argument sketched by AlBell months ago.
On the other hand, Fudbucker and logger have clearly little, if something, to say about this thread's subject but the intellectual equivalent of a piece of chalk scratching the blackboard. Epistemological hedonism on steroids, as the example of "we're not causing it but we can geo-engineer our way out of it" and Sesame St. economics like "carbon tax makes them get money in a context of higher fuel prices, global cooling and desperate masses rejecting liberalism in the end" -whatever liberalism is in the mind of this person-. Of course, not even the epistemologic level of someone getting 601 in their SAT tests. Let's call my words a strawman if you like, though it was never intended as a counterargument of what was said by them but as a description of decay of quality and off-topicality that permeates this forum.
Let's make it climate science focused for these intellectual powerhouses: You got a nearly exceptional Antarctic sea ice extent and area for the 40 days around and following last solstice.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html
What did it mean in terms of the planet's energy budget during those days? What can you infer from the global temperature sets for those days, including the satellite golem built by I. Jones at Huntsville? The 12-month running average was record high by January 2015 (there's always a set that says it isn't so), what do you expect it to be by February 2015?
Let's remind denialists -and some warmers- that the Earth's orbit is not circular.
By the way, I would like an AGW sceptic answering this question (I never got any reply to it from them, here and everywhere. They suddenly become mute when asked this and similar basic questions): Which is warmer, a mass of air at 20°C with relative humidity 50% or the exact same mass of air at 19.3°C with relative humidity 70%? The reply has to be "scientific" and you may use any of them or both if you're doubting about it being a mass of dry air or wet air.
!
.
.