What are you talking about?The way they are referred to is snide and tart. You don't need me to tell you
If he left out the word "self-described" one would have to assume that he was the author of the description of the Arctic Council. Since they are describing themselves, he was only giving attribution. Quite nice of him I think. Should he have instead said, "They describe themselves as..."? Rather verbose, don't you think? No ad hominem there.
You must have a very thin skin if you think self-described is some sort of dirty word or something? That's not good. Let's try to keep a grip. Ok?
Gee, I didn't know the models are now so accurate that we can rely on them with utter confidence. They all successfully model reality and agree perfectly now?The only explanation for why the rise is so rapid is the anthorogenic contribution, nothing else in the models accounts for it.
At least they can stop rewriting the models now that they have one we can put our full confidence in. When is the Nobel Prize going to be awarded?
Oh, yeah. If 1937 was the warmest in the Arctic in the last 130 years(see my 1st post) I don't see any reason to worry too much. Sounds more like natural variability to me.
From their report.They are not demonstrating AGW, that is another area of the science. They are demonstrating the warming. What part of it do you have a problem with?
Sure sounds to me like they're talking about AGW. Why else would they say that?There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
You haven't cited any factual errors or irrational statements in article I linked, so I guess it was a pretty good link.