On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Just listened to a guy who made $100 million off of Climate Hysterics tell everyone that the polar ice caps could be GONE during the summer by 2014.... Why do you guys still believe the lies?

COMPLETELY ICE FREE!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XyTbPwhlw

FUNNY VIDEO OF THE SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN THE NON-EXISTANT ICE

redictably, the voices of denial are rising as Arctic sea ice melt season peaks and ranks only fifth-lowest ever. The clamor is being raised over Al Gore's Nobel Prize acceptance speech quote supposedly saying that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013.1 What Gore did or didn't say is beside the point: For the propagandists delivering this message, the objective is "cast doubt and discredit." From Gore's speech:

Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.2
And yes, the deniers cannot even add. Not only did Gore not say "by 2013," but it would be 2014 at the soonest. ... On to reality:

The Navy researcher that leads this "new study" team that the former vice president alludes to is Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Maslowski also did not say "by 2013" in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009. This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."3

Even with the chaos of weather manipulating Arctic sea ice, it is easy to see the great downward trend. The image below is based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change modeling and National Snow and Ice Data Center data. The blue shaded area is the range of Arctic sea ice area coverage over time as Earth warms. The broad range represents the chaos of weather. Actual ice coverage any year could be as high or low as the shading in the blue.4

The red line is actual satellite measurements of ice coverage and represents our climate reality that is some 70 years ahead of the models.5 The chaos is much more apparent in the jagged nature of the yearly measurements. But sea ice area coverage reporting is inherently a messy way to represent the real world.

ind can blow sea ice around and bunch it up or spread it out and make the two-dimensional picture appear different than what is actually happening. A better measure is ice volume.

The graphic "Annual Minimum Arctic Sea Ice Volume" even more clearly shows the collapse that is occurring as well as the last several years of data since Maslowksi published his papers. This work was done by the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington. It was funded by the NSF, NASA, NOAA and ONR. By determining ice volume rather than surface coverage, we have a much more accurate and stable picture of the way the Arctic is responding to warming.

On Dec 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 11, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 11, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fede......tactics/

Well the taxpayer funded organization NOAA doesn't want anyone to view the data they used to get their warming conclusion. And I thought the whole point of science was to be open and verifiable. More lies and obfuscations. If your work is honest, it can be checked.

You seem to not have read the article very closely. The data is public; what NOAA is protecting is documents containing deliberations.

Quote:

One other thing. On the 97% consensus people use here, do you know where it comes from. One person reviewed 77 peoples articles and determined that 97% agreed on global warming. There is no consensus and it doesn't matter anyway.

Complete BS. I have debunked that claim at least twice, including earlier in this thread.

Quote:

There is no warming, proven by satellite data. If it's provable, just show the work and we'll all know it's real. This is why no one believes in global warming. The scientific community is so politicized that there is no science. Just grant grabbing and towing the line.

Where do you get this stuff. The satellite data confirms global warming. Heck, even Roy Spencer agrees that the satellite data indicates warming. (Spencer disputes the cause, and places faith that God will not allow the planet to be harmed, but that's another issue altogether.)

This has all been dealt with in the earlier pages of this discussion, with links to scientific data and analysis.

It's a taxpayer funded organization. Their deliberations should be public record. If they were private scientists I would agree that they can keep their emails. As a government employee their emails are property of the government and should be handed over. Just like Obama said if you have nothing to hide, you would do it.

So every discussion in the oval office or the pentagon should be public? Every discussion around every meeting room of any organization that receives public funding should be public? Every party caucus? Interviews for jobs?

You're sure this isn't a witch hunt?

On Dec 15, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Why is there so much discussion around all this? Because the global warmers are alarmists and have made numerous predictions that have been proven false. The scientific community has put forth a lot of data that has been successfully disputed by other experts. The models are not necessarily fully informed because we may not understand enough about how the earth handles more CO2.

If there is pushback it's because the global warming oops none, now we're climate change people. There is always climate change. AGW is not proven. The models are open to corruption and/or not able to use all variables. The hockey stick was the banner now it's a laughing stock. The first models didn['t predict what actually happened.

Those of us that remember the population bomb talk of the 70s know to take scientific predictions with a grain of salt. The scientists and those capitalizing off warming/change are responsible for this being the mess it is.

Consensus is for wussies. Real scientists have reproducible and accurate results.

On Dec 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If you look at Magnus chart, it says we don't have any ice RIGHT NOW!!! ZERO at 2015.....ROTFLMAO