It is part of the new expansion pack released last year, Cataclysm.

The boss has an AoE centered around him that in heroic mode would kill most tanks let alone anyone silly enough to be in range. My bear could take one of those, but the healer had best be on watch. The boss gave warning with "run away little girl" and a graphic. My bear was very well equipped missing only one item before firelands was released... the Bear Polearm... just would not drop.

Run away little girl in wow meant literally run away cause the pwnhammer was coming, and kinda got used in chat and vent for anything dangerous that you should get away from

As for my sources, some are news stories, some are scientific papers. Some are data sources.

Most of the stuff I can put out if challenged is doctorate written, peer reviewed, and has successfully stood up in the face of scrutiny of the enemy.

However when not challenged I will post whatever takes my fancy.

I have been on global warming for a while, and I keep studying the evidence, besides math and politics.... this is me. I am so confident that if I had ten thousand dollars right nowk I would make a commercial right now fighting against it.

All levels are tainted. It is just one hell of a huge lie. The ground station data is wrong (proven), the Satelite data is flawed (proven), the Forcing is incorrect (proven), the models fail quickly (proven), the correlation with Cosmic Radiation is ignored, the history of the world is ignored.

The Gobi used to be a tropical forest, in Arizona they sell fossilized wood that used to be part of a vast wilderness there.... now a desert. They ignore records of previous glacier loss (they formed in the little ice age according to some, and have been dying since), and of glaciers that are growing.

When some college kids used Google Earth and found ice caps were larger than reported an embarrassed scientist claimed they knew of the error rate but since the satelite they were using had longer records they thought it better for comparison.

They ignore evidence the ice cap at the arctic has natural variability (I posted a 2005 and a 2008 image for comparison, 2008 is larger around greenland but mostly the same otherwise). They ignore that the South Pole, aka Antarctica is adding lots more ice.

The common man does not think of inflation when he see's the damages done in a year to infrastructure. The common person thinks US Corn Ethanol produces less pollution than normal oil.

So many things I could go on about, and provide the strongest proofs for. Yet the other side refuses to listen, much like a child with their fingers in their ears.

Ask and ye shall receive!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116701221801_45/?hub=SciTech
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0203.htm
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/3913
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/haog-tad042108.php

A mix of news, government sites, and university studies.

And I did not even break a sweat on that.

Just looking at the first of those sources you posted...

"The interior of the east Antarctic ice sheet is the only large terrestrial ice body that is likely gaining mass rather than losing it," said Curt Davis, an engineering professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who co-authored the report.

"They said their work pertains only to the interior, eastern part of the Antarctic ice sheet. Other parts of the sheet may be contributing to rises in sea level, not mitigating them."

"Markus Frey said that with results that only document what's happened in the past 10 years, it's impossible to tell whether the trends will continue, and whether they've been caused by natural climate variation or human-caused global warming."

"During the past century, warmer temperatures have caused melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and mountain glaciers, which has translated into a rise in the oceans. The trend is expected to continue."

I don't actually like some of these sentences because they are themselves unsourced, but my point is to highlight what the source you are using is actually saying, and to try to demonstrate that you possibly haven't actually read the sources yourself. Total global ice coverage is more important that just one location, this report seems to deal with just one location and not even the whole of Antarctica as you seemed to claim, and in fact the source says that this location is the only major ice body which is likely to be gaining ice rather than losing it. It would be a lot better if you just posted a single, good quality source which actually supported the claims you make (or more accurately, it would be better if the claims you made were justified based on the good quality sources you had read).

In fact, I actually did go on to read all of the sources Flint just posted.

This post is in addition to the post I made above about this link http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20050521/antarctic_sheet_050521/

Link no 2: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html

This is somebody's blog, this person's credentials are completely unknown but they are keen for me to go to www.idateasia.com. They point out that Arctic ice has been retreating. The author uses this data (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg) to claim that Antarctic ice has been retreating even though it looks to me like total area is fairly constant - i doubt but have not tested that those apparent all time records are statistically significant. Additionally one of the commenters pointed out that the author ignored the Arctic graph http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg which shows a more obvious down. However the graphs aren't plotted on the same scales (just). It is interesting to note that there is some periodicity in the Northern hemisphere graph with a period of about 6 years, however each period is lower than the previous one. The two years that Flint chose earlier 2005 and 2008, show that 2005 is at the trough of one period and 2008 is half a cycle later at the peak of the next one. What is more significant is that 2008 is lower than 2000-2002 which is the peak of the previous period (though this comparison still does not form a long term trend).

Link no. 3: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html

This takes me to some kind of home page, not really showing much, are we supposed to be looking at the first story about the difficulties of measuring snowfall? Not sure this is relevant, or it needs some kind of comment as to what you think we are getting out of the article.

Link no. 4: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0203.htm

"Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses" <--This is the very first line of the article, you almost certainly haven't read the article if you think this supports a conclusion that the Earth is not warming.

Link no. 5: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/3913

I don't quite understand the proposed mechanism in this article (about streams beneath the ice sheet freezing etc.), but otherwise can't really find fault with the article. I don't think it is used in the correct way by Flint though because it only concerns one mass of ice, which is not necessarily a measure of any changes in global conditions.

Link no. 6: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/haog-tad042108.php

Again I can't really find fault with it, but I don;t really know why it is relevant. It does mention that there are warming trends seen in the Arctic as well as cooling in the Antarctic but it mainly looks like a description of an ongoing experiment to measure iron concentration.

In conclusion it seems to me that the sources you post do not really support the overall claims you are making. Some of them are blatently unreliable e.g. blogs and they aren;t all relevant to the specific point you have made or posted them in support of. Even those which are directly relevant sometimes directly contradict your overall point. None of them suggest that any effects are not related to human activity, and none of them show any global trends or global data. Where they do mention global data they mention warming trends.

Pick the two news stories... sheesh.

As for the ground stations in the United States... just looked to confirm, 89% are inaccurate by a MINIMUM of 1 degree hotter than reality.

As for the satelite data, the GISS provided data has been examined by Mr. Watts and by others, all who have come to the same conclusion.... it is filled with errors and... I believe they called them dead zones.

Ok now you read them all.
I will post later the significance.

Btw damn you NASA for hiding the info <(

Www.Surfacestations.org

Evidence in full on the 89% quote, and supporting evidence by him to support his claim.

As for the rest... I get home in about 2 hours... just need to do paperwork and deposit some checks. Then I can make a grand post for you to set ya in gear.

Ok I chose 6 links at random... just so you know.

First link, here is the primary information:

TUCSON, Ariz.

The site attacks idiot profiteers. We are talking almost 1 trillion dollars of FRAUD. I agree they should be mocked at the least.

The CERN document reinforces this stuff and more research:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/correlation-demonstrated-bewteen-cosmic-rays-and-temperature-of-the-stratosphere/
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/31/earth.rays/index.html

Ozone hole is usually centered with a portion at the southern magnetic pole. There is enough research to indicate it is a natural phenomenon and cannot be significantly altered by man. I can linkify this if really arsed to do so.

www.surfacestations.org has had a white paper published, and soon the site owner is publishing a 2nd with more information regarding weather data collection... I have been given a taste of the new paper... It will be... umm... a case closed on the fact that weather data is not being correctly gathered.

Trust me, between three sites... http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050 http://www.surfacestations.org and http://www.wattsupwiththat.com I can usually come up with any necessary SCIENTIFIC proof counter to any argument presented.

As Zarf always points out... Correlation =/= Causation. Additionally as I point out... one side is getting hundreds of billions, the other gets not even a hundredth of that amount. Which side would someone join if they want a lot of money?

"Ozone hole is usually centered with a portion at the southern magnetic pole. There is enough research to indicate it is a natural phenomenon and cannot be significantly altered by man. I can linkify this if really arsed to do so."

I am asking you to do so

Agreed.