Just asking.

Perhaps you owe me an apology.

I think you mischaracterized Anthony Watts. His blog entry on the 9/11 incident is anti-”troofers”

I quote:
The Chico News and Review has gotten quite a number of letters on their 911 Truth article which gave a platform to the people whom prefer to believe that a gigantic government conspiracy was the reason behind the 911 WTC collapse, and that the towers were brought down with explosives, rather than by fire.

I wrote a short blog essay on the subject, and a letter to the editor, pointing out that the recent collapse of the I580-880 freeway interchange had a lot of similarities, illustrating that fire can indeed take town steel and concrete structures.

Predictably, the 911Truthers lobbed a couple of ticked off letters back at me, even going so far as to say I’m “spreading distortions”.
While I don’t intend to argue their points, since you can’t usually come out winning when you argue with people whom believe conspiracy theories

It seems you neglected to read what he actually wrote, and only looked at the venue in which is it was posted. This speaks volumes about your point of view.

cheers,
Robert

“If you can show me that is is not possible that the ice could have been thinner at times in the ’50’s, then most certainly the post is erroneous.”

The question is not whether the ice COULD have been thinner — of course it could. The question is whether there is any good reason to BELIEVE that it was. The fact that submarines could find holes in the ice cover in the 50’s is consistent with the ice being thinner, but it’s also consistent with the ice being just as thick, or possibly even thicker (I don’t know how easily submarines can find holes in the ice cover now). In other words, it’s not a good reason to think that the ice is actually thicker today than in the 50’s.

And then, there are good reasons to think it’s thinner now. There are no cooling trends apparent in the data for the 20th century on the scale of a 30 year trend, so the notion that the ice was thin in the 50’s, bounced back in time for the start of satellite measurements in the 70’s, and has been in decline since then is simply not supported by the evidence (well, the decline since the 70’s is, but not the build up from the 50s to 70s).

I just got your other comment. I’m not familiar with tamino: I will certainly read what he/she to say.

Again, let me say that this discussion has helped me to re-examine some of my opinions on this issue.