<div><strong><em>Please refrain from distorting my carefully worded statements. You are misrepresenting what I wrote.</em></strong> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I will quote from my first post on the record Arctic sea ice decline for the month of May, in 2010:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"...<strong><em>they may need</em></strong> to construct more powerful confirmation bias<br>filters,<strong><em> if 2010 trends continue as they have.</em></strong> We are on course in 2010 to<br>set a new warmest annual average global temperature year, and Arctic sea ice<br>
also is on track to tie or exceed the previous record low of 2007.<br><br>Of course, these trends <strong><em>could change substantially."</em></strong></div>
<div>------------</div>
<div>This quote does not indicate that I think the trend for the 2010 Arctic sea ice to be the lowest surface area coverage on record, to be "set in stone," as you wrote (I state that the trends "could change substantially").</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was only pointing out that if the 2010 trends so far, both for average global temperature, and Arctic sea ice area decline, <strong><em>continue,</em></strong> it will be evidence against the claims of some anthropogenic climate change skeptics, who have insisted global warming is not progressing in the global temperature record since the record high years 1998 and/or 2005, and that the Arctic ice has "recovered" from the 2007 record low.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But one way or the other, the confirmation bias prevalent among many of the anthropogenic climate change skeptics will result in them dismissing a record warm average global temperature for 2010, or record low Arctic sea ice extent 2010, as not very important. Greenland could slip into the ocean, and Manhattan rendered a loss due to flooding, and many of the anthropogenic climate change skeptics would insist these were natural climate change events.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>They employ their confirmation bias to dismiss the overwhelming evidence from the numerous studies of climate sensitivity (increase in global average temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2), one of the most important questions in climate science, that have been conducted since Arrhenius in 1896, that demonstrate climate sensitivity to be significant; and that the radiative physics/mathematics regarding CO2's operation in the Earth's atmosphere is well established science, demonstrating that human sourced CO2 emissions are significantly warming the Earth's climate:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>-------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"> My main reason for responding to Ted was based on his comment that skeptics will have to beef up their confirmation bias filters to not believe that sea ice will fall below 2007 levels. I wanted to point out that those kinds of conclusions are not as set in stone as he thinks. </blockquote>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>