Comments 1 to 3:

1. Lloyd Flack at 00:34 AM on 27 September, 2011
   No, of course not. It is the lack of pirates that leads to global warming. Ramen.
2. Paulie200 at 19:04 PM on 28 September, 2011
   Lloyd Flack @ comment 1.
   
   The case for pirates being fewer in number in the more recent climatological record relies on a seriously outmoded definition of "pirate." While the incidence of pirates in their traditional littoral waters has fallen dramatically (Somalia and the Indian Ocean notwithstanding) current pirates have undergone a spatial relocation to well organized operations at the worlds financial institutions. (i.e. AIG, CitiBank, along with a slew of Brit, German, and other banks and financial institutions worldwide. And who can listen to Oztralia's own Rupert Murdoch and NOT think "If he only had an eye patch and a parrot. Arrrrrrr matey!")
   
   I suggest that the number of pirates has increased in a manner even more alarming than global temperatures, and that the two are positively, and often causally, related.
   
   (As to the Climate Show, that was really good, and informative, and I'll be looking for the next one. John Cook is as lucid, mellow and informed on video as he is in his writing on his blog. But the best part of that show for me is that I think I can now tell the difference between an Ozzie, who would be the geest, and the Kiwi host, who has geusts on his show ;)
3. BC at 12:59 PM on 29 September, 2011
   What occurred to me with John's comments about Greenland is that the loss of cover would be from areas where the ice is thin at the edges, so 15% of ice cover loss would not necessarily equate to 15% of Greenland ice loss. This in turn means 15% of cover loss would not equate to 1m of sea level rise. Or is the thickness at the edges similar to the middle?
   
   (John Cook does not have an accent but Glenn Williams does. I live in Brisbane)

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.