Antarctica has set a new sea ice record, which is odd considering the global temperature is rising, though scientists said global warming is likely the reason for the increase. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD) said this week the sea ice extent already hit the record for the third straight year with a few weeks to spare.

Jan Lieser of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre in Hobart, said that the increase will not sustain itself. “By 2100 we will see dramatic reductions,” she said, according to the publication. “Once it goes belly-up it’s not good for the rest of the world.”

“In the short term, it seems like there hasn’t been much ice loss in the past couple of years, but I think it’s still very much within the long-term trend of declining sea ice,” Axel Schweiger, chairman of the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center in Seattle, told LiveScience. “One shouldn’t necessarily expect every year to be a record low.

This the first time that the sea ice level could exceed 7.7 million square miles in historical records, according to the data collected from satellite readings by Phil Reid of the Centre for Australian Climate and Weather Research.

“The raise in Antarctic sea ice level may seem contradictory set modifications in the universal climate, although it’s not as we think about several other causes at play”, says Jan Leiser, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre in Hobart.

According to scientists cited by LiveScience, global warming is the cause of both the Arctic’s sea ice decrease and Antarctica’s sea ice increase. Scientists report that Antarctica’s sea increase may be the consequence of more powerful winds. These winds, according to studies cited by LiveScience, are more powerful because the southern polar vortex is agitating the air closer to Antarctica as a result of the ozone hole and greenhouse gases.

 

75 Responses

  1. ReduceGHGs

    Lots of deniers posting comments. Must be a denier bot convention! All offer only baseless opinions that run contrary to what the world’s respected scientific institutions have concluded. I’ll stick with NASA, AGU, MET, AAAS, NAS, and the others.
    Google: NASA Climate Change Consensus

    Reply
    • prwright

      If someone is tossing out terms like “consensus” or referring to institutions and their perceived “respectability”, then they are not talking about Science. Period.

      Reply
      • ReduceGHGs

        NASA made use of the word “consensus”. No, I don’t work for them.

  2. Bicycle Bob

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The baby is the fact that CO2 is causing global warming. The bath water is determining where the excess heat is going. Elementary physics shows that CO2 retards the flow of heat from the earth back out to space. It ceases to be an elementary question when you try to figure out where the heat is going within the earth system, and how it will affect local climates. It is a complicated system. Surprise! The increase in heat is changing wind and ocean currents, which change heat flow, precipitation. Climatologists are still trying to determine out how much and where heat has gone into the ocean, let alone how to model it. The difficulties in figuring out the details should be recognized for what it is – details. We don’t know the time scale for when global warming will cause major ill effects. We do know that if we adding CO2 we will eventually see them.

    Bicycle Bob

    Reply
    • prwright

      “Ill effects to MAN” since the Earth and its’ atmosphere do not acknowledge ill effects.

      Reply
      • Bicycle bob

        In addition to a few typos, my comment did indeed show an anthropocentric bias. I would add though, that there are many other animals and plants that will be negatively effected, and possibly even driven to extinction. There will undoubtedly also be a few winners.

  3. crescentfang

    No contradiction can ever bother a true believer. Let’s face it, the “Global Warming” people are about as absurd as the Creationists. The great thing about “Global Climate Change” is that it can explain anything so there is no need to make predictions and be proved wrong. I’m willing to put up with the religious types who claim God controls everything because they aren’t trying to line their pockets with my tax money or “mandating” that I buy their overpriced electricity, ethanol, etc.

    Reply
  4. stan0301

    Let me share–at the start of the Middle Ages Vikings were living by farming in Greenland–then came the “Little Ice Age”” by 1400 it was so cold they all left–or died. It is still too cold to live by farming in Greenland– global warming is largely a mental model that doesn’t match the real world– just ask the Vikings
    Stan

    Reply
    • Michael B.

      The climate on earth has been changing for over 4.5 billion years. Why should it stop changing now just because someone says it should?

      Reply
      • stan0301

        Right–and the thing the talking heads always leave out is the fact (check it on Google) than the part of carbon dioxide that occurs each year that is caused by humans is “less than 3%”of the total that occures–which means that if by some impossible effort we were to reduce our “carbon footprint” by, say 20%(impossible) that would be 20% of “less than 3%”–an amount so small it would be impossible to measure. Add to this the fact (again Google) that water vapor is ten times as powerful an effector of warming as carbon dioxide–but, because there is so much more of it than carbon dioxide it actuarially exerts 640 times the affect on warming then is exerted by carbon dioxide. Last point–when natural gas or other hydrocarbons are burned they give off both water vapor and carbon dioxide in about equal amounts–with the preponderance of any warming occurring coming from the heat retained by the water vapor–the warming folk would always say–but the water vapor turns to rain and falls out. Well, some does, but it is very unusual for the atmosphere to be so saturated that there isn’t room for a little more water vapor, and just how much might fall out is very poorly studied. Oh, and when burned, coal emits essentially no water vapor, so when you do the math coal exerts far less warming effect than natural gas–depending on just how long the water vapor from natural gas sticks around–someone really does need to study that.
        Stan

  5. Gary S

    Some of you are apparently confused. This article discusses “sea ice extent” in Antarctica. You might have been misled by the title phrase “… Sea Ice Level”? But meanwhile, the VOLUME of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic has been decreasing. (Recent satellite measurements say by over 500 cubic kilometers per year!) Recent extreme weather events are consistent with “climate change”. Of course some people will just not pay attention to the real data. Have you heard that this August was the hottest on record? EVER!

    Reply
  6. Macchendra

    Simultaneous with the warmest summer on record. People are too gullible to realize that this is the MOC slowing down. The oil companies make sure there is big money in climate change denial.

    Reply
  7. liquidity

    I’m pretty sure most deaths that might result from global warming will be people freezing to death because they can not afford fuel in winter or starving to death because they can not get a job.
    Perhaps we should remember that if global warming is anthropogenic, its root cause is too many anthros. We know how to cure the problem of too many anthros. Effective and relatively inexpensive means are at our disposal. The only challenge is picking the right ones to discard – meaning to greatest mutual benefit. I suggest parasites and whiners be at the top of the list – a curative process that is sure to eliminate most global warming advocacy.

    Reply
    • ReduceGHGs

      You’re “pretty sure”. Thanks for the expert opinion. Try reading what the informed have concluded about how climate change will affect people. Amazing how deniers say we should keep chopping on the tree that supports all that sustains us. “But we need the wood!” Talk about a short-sighted approach! Both the human and economic costs of not addressing climate change far out-weight the costs of changing the ways we generate and use energy. Need links to learn more about it? ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org

      Reply
  8. Raydar

    “Antarctica has set a new sea ice record, which is odd considering the global temperature is rising, though scientists said global warming is likely the reason for the increase. ”

    Black is white.
    Up is down.
    Hot is cold.

    Reply
    • Gary S

      You don’t understand the difference between ice extent and ice volume. ice VOLUME is decreasing at both poles. That (and warming sea temperatures) will cause sea level rise.

      Reply
  9. Bobby S

    When all coastal cities are underwater in a hundred years, there will still be right-wing industrialists who insist global warming is fake science. They think North and South Poles are like refrigerator freezer that defrosts and ices up again quickly on its own. Civilization reduced to living like that bad Kevin Costner sci-fi movie Waterworld in near future. When future is bad sci-fi movie, then panic.

    Reply
    • liquidity

      The geologic record clearly shows that the ocean today is about 90 meters deeper than it was roughly 12000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Stone age man, as modern man does today, tended to concentrate in lowlands close to the shoreline.
      One stone age example is that much of what is now the Baltic sea was densely inhabited marshy plain today covered with 40 to 200 feet of water. Since society in the stone age was as yet unsullied by liberal thought, most people were smart enough to move to higher ground when their feet got wet. Your note perhaps indicates that such intelligence is in less abundance today.
      Relatively speaking, the oceans rose rapidly in the early days because there was a lot of ice cap around to melt. By the dawn of the industrial age (say 1700) when nasty industrialists were about to began burning fossil fuels, most of the ice zones were melted sea level was within a few inches of today, the very good news being that not much (more than a meter or two) is theoretically possible even though extraordinarily unlikely. Even Al Gore was smart enough to acknowledge this reality by virtue of his recent purchase of a California ocean front mansion.
      So, since you seem to learn your science, history, and logic from Hollywood, here is a hint: Get worried about sea level rise when you see the movie stars move to Nevada and the Kennedy clan list their Hyannis Port property.

      Reply
    • prwright

      Coastal areas receding is equal to “civilization reduced to living like” the people in “Waterworld”?

      Wow.

      Reply
  10. Storm

    Actually I hate cold weather and was hoping for some warm or hot day……that’s why I don’t join the Global Warming Religion…they keep getting it wrong!

    Reply
  11. ReduceGHGs

    Human-caused climate change is well established fact. Deniers prompted by vested fossil fuel interests hype ANY information they can to misinform the public. But don’t be fooled. They’re in it for more and more profits. Read what the experts have been saying for years. Among the informed, there’s no reasonable doubt. Climate change is happening and the consequences are not good. More of us need to get active and do something about it.
    Google: NASA Climate Change Consensu

    Reply
    • NY Keith

      Those pushing warmist religion have a financial interest is pushing the theory.

      12000 years ago where I am sitting now was covered by 35 feet of ice.

      Is warming real? Yes. Man made? Not clear and maybe not that big of a deal. If folks like you are so frightened then you should support a call for 400 new nuke power plants across America so we can get of fossil completely.

      Or how about a carbon import offset tariff on all goods coming from nations more carbonee than ours.

      Remember Gaia is a closed system yet impacted by the sun”s activity.

      There is no reason to steal money from some and give it to others due to Global warming especially since warmists refuse to support the two practical ideas mentioned above.

      Reply
      • ReduceGHGs

        Climate change not that big a deal? Could you be more terribly misinformed or are you just dishonest?
        Religions have to do with beliefs not supported by scientific study. I’ll stick with the many unbiased studies that have been completed and what the credible experts conclude believe it all means. Read what they’ve been saying for years. Try the NASA link I offered earlier.
        And by the way… That big hot ball of gas we rotate around wasn’t overlooked in the studies. It’s influence has been ruled out. Ugh!

      • crescentfang

        Unbiased??? NASA is a government agency.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Don’t like NASA? Think they hoaxed the moon landings? lol!
        Well how about NAS, AAAS, AGU, MET, AIP, or the others? Must be they’re all in it together, a global 40+ year air-tight conspiracy, right? There aren’t ANY honest studies out there? They’re all fabricated for dupe the public? Are you wearing an aluminum hat?

      • crescentfang

        No conspiracy is required. Everyone involved has an interest in promoting “global warming” to justify bigger budgets and research grants, etc. That is just human nature. Did you expect the UN scientists to actually admit that they couldn’t accurately calculate the earth’s temperature? They were paid to predict the cuts in CO2 to control warming so they produced a number. The only thing wrong with the number was that they didn’t acknowledge the uncertainty in the model.

        Let’s discuss NASA for a minute. After the Challenger blew up on launch, the investigation revealed that the engineer’s reliability estimates were at least a factor of 10 below the requirements NASA had come up with so they were forced to fake them. Also, you may remember that the launch was authorized over the objection of the engineers who knew it was too cold so the O-rings were too brittle to survive the launch.

        None of this matters anyway. China generates more CO2 than the United States and Europe combined. That won’t change unless they run out of coal or build enough nuclear plants to replace the coal fired ones. The developing countries of the world aren’t going to let their populations live on the edge of starvation for our benefit. The “solutions” being suggested are impractical and only serve to line the pockets of people like Al Gore who is getting rich playing Chicken Little. Not every government can be as corrupt as ours and avoid being overthrown.

      • ReduceGHGs

        So there’s no good climate change science being done anywhere because all the experts lie about their conclusions? Even the scientists in China, India, France, Germany, Japan, England, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and elsewhere? Sorry, people aren’t as corrupt as you appear to believe. It takes many years of education and training to acquire the necessary tools to do climate change research. The easiest way to end a career is to be dishonest in your work. There’s no evidence to back up your accusations. I recommend having a little more faith in the people completing the studies and those that review their work. To believe you it’s being going on for over 40 years globally, no one has ever been caught, and everyone is in on it. I doubt you believe that. Looks like you’re either short on honesty or critical thinking.

      • crescentfang

        The authors of the UN climate model did get caught, in case you have forgotten. They managed to discredit the whole “science of global warming” in the mind of anyone who was paying attention.

        World CO2 emissions increased by record amounts last year and the Germans are back to burning coal, thanks to the “greens”. The snake oil being pitched to the public and governments to reduce CO2 is useless at best and harmful at worst. How much did the world gain by converting corn to ethanol and raising the price of food world wide? Can it even be proved that burning corn based ethanol reduces CO2 emissions?

        Go talk to the Chinese. They control the bulk of the CO2 emissions. The US industrial economy is reducing its emissions by dying. It doesn’t need further damage from misguided government policies.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Lots of baseless opinion. You jump around looking for excuses to avoid the reality of human-caused climate change and its consequences. Missing the forest for the trees is a sure sign of a very limited perspective.

      • crescentfang

        If you are so concerned about CO2 then why doesn’t the fact that it can’t be controlled bother you? Your perspective doesn’t seem to include facing that reality.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Emissions can’t be controlled? What tha? Doesn’t it bother you that there are in fact ways to reduce emissions? Not part of your reality I guess.
        Read up.
        Google: Negative Environmental Externalities Sankar
        It’s a good paper, foundational.

      • Brad Lamberdini

        The truth is about to follow…If it were all coming down and it was so solid proof that we are causing global warming with x, y, z. Then why hasn’t the government’s of the world especially ours done something? Let me guess you think they don’t care because the 1 percent are taking their loved ones and going to Mars? I mean really that should prove that nothing about the bogus incomplete science each side parades around is true. The Ozone layer damage was done with the Nuke testing and it’s since repairing itself. That is evident and proven if you okat the time chart. Oh yea it could have been hairspray during that same time but this reasonable mind believes it probably had more to do with exploding nukes in our atmosphere. Secondly the earth has had several ice ages, if we were living after one of those would we call it global warming or natural cycle?

      • ReduceGHGs

        like talking to an adolescent…. no time for that.
        try the paper I suggested. more likely you’re too absorbed in showing others how little you know about the issue.

      • Brad Lamberdini

        Earth Day, 1970:

        “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
        • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

        “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
        • Life Magazine

        What happened, the science the science the science hoorah the science WAS WRONG, don’t believe everything your momma tells you because everybody lies Sir.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Yea, it’s certainly too late for many of the consequences of climate change. We’re already seeing them and many are already in the “pipeline”.

        Goo thing that after 1970 the law makers go the message and passed the Clean Air Act. It forced industries and car makers to clean up their act. Similar story with the Clean Water Act. Remember the burning rivers? No, you probably weren’t alive in the 60s. Now the rivers are much cleaner because of the enactment of NECESSARY legislation to protect the commons. With climate change we face a more dangerous global threat. Governments again need to “adjust” the business model for the sake of those that come after us.

      • crescentfang

        I meant that you can’t control China’s emissions. I keep pointing that out and you keep ignoring it as if it didn’t matter. There is no point in talking to you because you can only hear yourself.

      • ReduceGHGs

        We can indeed influence China’s emissions. Trade laws need to incorporate sustainable practices. This basic stuff. Do you really think their biggest trading partner doesn’t have a say in trade policies? Really?

      • crescentfang

        We are utterly dependent on Chinese exports. They have the upper hand in dealing with the US on trade. We can cut our own throats, but not theirs.

      • ReduceGHGs

        The Chinese realize that the consequences of climate change will not only affect everyone else on the planet it will be felt in China too. They are working on this problem too and trade laws are one “vehicle” to insure we all work together to the same goal… Sustainable cultures. What’s the alternative? Unsustainable cultures? Where would that leave humanity? Civilizations fail and people suffer without a healthy habitat. We (China included) really have no reasonable option but to change course.

      • crescentfang

        A “reasonable option” would have to include a supply of economic, reliable power. That is something that ethanol, windmills, and solar cells don’t offer. The Chinese are perfectly willing to build the solar cells for sale to greater fools like us but they are building nuclear plants for their own use.

        The last time I was in Shanghai, they weren’t letting school children go out for recess because the air quality was too bad. If they aren’t willing to fix that, they certainly aren’t going to bother with CO2.

        The Chinese leadership intends to make China the most powerful nation on Earth. Shared sacrifice is not on their agenda.

      • ReduceGHGs

        The unreasonable option is business as usual. Burning fossil fuels at current rates is not sustainable. Sounds like you believe that’s the only path forward, burn all the fossil fuels because you don’t believe there are any other options.

        You claim to understand China’s agenda but your statements tell a different story. You will probably say the following statement isn’t sincere but that’s expected.

        Google: Chinese official expresses ‘determination’ on climate

        China is “determined to honor” its commitment to address climate change despite difficulties, said Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the body that regulates China’s economic development.
        “The Chinese government is a responsible government and we are determined to honor our commitment in spite of the fact that we need to overcome a huge amount of difficulty,” said Xie of the National Development and Reform Commission at a press briefing at the United Nations on Tuesday, the day that the UN held its Climate Change Summit.
        “Besides that, I would like to add that the measures taken by the Chinese government to address climate change are not forced on China by the outside world, as President Xi Jinping has put it. We are doing it for our own sake, and we will disconnect China’s economic development [with] the increase of carbon emissions, and this is for the purpose for China to achieve sustainable development,” said Xie.

      • prwright

        Are you pretending to misunderstand what he meant or are you really that incapable of breaking things down? Obviously he meant man’s contribution to warming may not be a big deal. Again, man’s CONTRIBUTION, not “climate change” was being measured.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Try not to miss the forest for the trees. Focus!
        We are warming the earth mainly with our nearly unabated CO2 emissions and deforestation. And yes, the continued rise in global population if a driving force.
        Now that we know for a fact that many of our behaviors are deteriorating the biosphere’s habitability don’t you think that it’s prudent to alter those behaviors? Shouldn’t it be considered a matter of self-preservation to shift to sustainable ways to generate and use energy? It’s the only rational option. I recommend we all do more to encourage change else we shift the costs of our neglect onto our future generations.

      • prwright

        Not reading that. You don’t engage, you just output.

      • ReduceGHGs

        prwrong… I’m no expert but I think critically about this issue. Too many can’t or won’t. I know how to do honest research too. I’ve read many books and articles about climate change, about the science that discovered the human footprint in the warming patterns. It’s well-established science. I invite you to rid yourself of predispositions and examine what the world’s credible experts have concluded. The bulk of opinions to the contrary is funded by the fossil fuel interests. It’s just like what the tobacco industry did when the the health concerns of smoking were discovered. Today, the fossil fuel industry uses some of the very same “experts” to confuse the public.

      • prwright

        I haven’t stated at all what my views on it are, just that your hysterical bouncing around at this comment board and citing institutional output has NOTHING to do with SCIENCE. Science does not belong to institutions, it is not established by consensus. You don’t speak in terms of science. You rely on words like “respectable” and toss out other worthless concepts to science like the names of organizations. That you don’t see there is NO connection to the things you cite regarding laws in science is troubling is my point, all the while claiming to have some authority on the matter.

      • ReduceGHGs

        No science doesn’t “belong” to the institutions but there are no MORE informed sources available. It’s not just a consensus, it’s their unanimous conclusions!
        But clearly, like me, you are not an expert. So what are you left to do? How do you make a determination about a subject of which you are not qualified to do your own analysis? As with our courts, we should rely on the best, most reliable, unbiased sources of scientific information available. I rely on those at NASA, AGU, MET, AIP, NAS, AAAS, and many others. So tell me, what more reliable resources do you believe you have?

      • ReduceGHGs

        Of course you won’t do any honest research. All you want to do is banter with your baseless opinions. prwrong, your opinions is dead wrong. EVERYTHING each of us believes should be well-rooted in credible evidence. Some introspection is clearly in order.

      • prwright

        What? I said you misunderstood the person’s comment and no, I was not wrong about it. Jesus christ you need to calm down. At least stop being an I/O machine and pay attention to what is being said to you.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Just try supporting your opinions with evidence. Baseless babbling does no one any good. I’ll be happy to reply again but only if you provide anything worth reviewing. In the mean time you can learn more about climate change on my website. ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org
        Have a good one!

  12. Cliff Chism

    There are quite a few factual errors in this story. I do find that the title is accurate, though.

    Reply
  13. Whoever

    What a load of BS. Climate change and global warming are based on models, and not reality. It’s a scam to get taxpayer money for their grants. (grants: using other peoples money so you can steal it, not have to work, and put out more fraudulent data).

    Reply
    • ReduceGHGs

      The “BS” was your comment. Most climate change science is NOT model based. Are you one of the nuts that believe that NASA hoaxed the moon landings? lol!

      Reply
      • Lucius

        Relax GHG, I’m having fun. My comment is clearly a bit of hyperbole, but I would classify myself as a climate skeptic. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but at this point, I do not find the man-made climate change argument compelling. Lighten up brother, it’s Saturday. 🙂

      • ReduceGHGs

        Lighten up? With habitability deteriorating no one should take this issue lightly. Only the uninformed, misinformed, deluded, and the dishonest say that they have doubt about anthropogenic warming. Given the many studies and the opinions of EVERY respected scientific institution that considered the issue, no, there’s no reasonable doubt. I invite you to read what the experts say.
        Google: NASA Climate Change Consensus

      • Joe Weil

        NASA is notorious for canning non-lockstep scientists. NASA is part of the government that will benefit immensely by permeating the myth.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Another baseless accusation. Don’t like NASA? How about NAS? One of their first studies dates back to 1979, The Charney Report. Subsequent studies (and there have been many) by other respected scientists and organizations have been completed globally. The “myth” is that there is supporting evidence to the contrary. There isn’t. News Flash… The atmosphere isn’t the endless waste disposal site that it’s been used for. There are consequences for changing it’s composition.

      • prwright

        You don’t claim to understand or defend science, you claim allegiance to institutions and men. Science doesn’t care about any of that and that you pretend that those institutions can by themselves remove scientific doubt? You are in fact hostile and un-supportive to SCIENCE.

      • thinkingman

        when a guys name is reduce greenhouse gases you should expect the deranged answer he posted below, and as you can see there is no such thing as light up with a green fanatic, these guys pray to their gd, gore … lol

      • ReduceGHGs

        Just spreading the word about climate change, repeating what the world’s respected scientific institutions have been saying. Not really much of a thinkingman now are you? More like a nonthinkingadolescent?

      • thinkingman

        just spreading your version of what you call respected scientific institutions that have been caught lying,mistating data, and best of all making data it up and its all exposed in the email that were hacked. Recently even the 97% of scientist support warming lie has been debunked, And let see how Michael Mann’s lawsuit against Mark Steyn plays out. steyn says the hcoksy stick is alie, mann says he can prove it. so is he ducking discovery.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Need help determining source credibility and potential bias? It’s basic to honest research. You say there’s been “lying” and “misstating data” but fail to back that up. May you didn’t know that the Climategate hype is over. The scientists were cleared in THREE independent investigations. As for Mann, he is but one of many scientists around the world. Ever wonder why there are NO studies that contradict anthropogenic warming, no respected scientific institutions? Must be a 40+ year global air-tight conspiracy, right? When you can come up with superior evidence, or ANY credible evidence to support your denials, please send a link. I won’t hold my breath waiting.

    • Lucius

      A hotline psychic described his training as follows:

      “As part of his ‘training’ … he was told to use generalities that might apply to everyone … to be vague and sound mystical because a lot of clients liked that. He was also told to make up specific information about the future because people wanted to know what was going to happen to them.”

      See Whoever, a climate “scientist” is much like a hotline psychic. Keep the “science” of climate change perfectly fluid and it can apply to any change in circumstance and be the answer to any question. Make-up specific information about climate events that will occur centuries in the future and when they fail to materialize, it will have no consquence anway (afterall, you’re long dead, and the people have moved on to something else).

      And this is the real kicker, after you make up distant future predictions, shift the burden of proof to the skeptics, and tell them to prove that it won’t happen. When they can’t, call them “deniers”. 😉

      Reply
  14. Willie Jack

    The great con—Scientist get their money from the Government agencies–the government wants to control and add taxes to the people–so the scientist say what they get paid to say–you don’t get money to say there is no global warming

    Reply
  15. will777

    I just read an article about the ozone hole recovering significantly and is expected to be fully recovered by 2050. So which one is it? Is global warming causing sea ice loss or is it causing sea ice gains, is the ozone hole recovering or is it getting bigger and causing sea ice loss/gain? Let us know when you’ve made up your minds please.

    Reply
    • crescentfang

      The ozone hole was blamed on CFCs used in air conditioners and spray cans. They were banned decades ago. CO2 has nothing to do with the ozone layer.

      Reply
      • will777

        LOL, tell me something I don’t know (or anyone else for that matter). I was of course referring to the article’s mention of “the ozone [layer] hole, ” … “agitating the air closer to Antarctica …”
        But thanks for giving those who don’t know something as simple as the difference between CO2 and CFC a primer in ozone layer destruction. You win today’s Captain Obvious Internet award, and runner up to the always fun Commenting on Articles You Haven’t Read award.

  16. BKC

    If the arctic and antarctic ice shrinks, it is because of global warming. If the arctic and antarctic ice expands to record levels, it is because of global warming. If it is too dry, global warming. If there is too much rainfall, global warming. If the winter is mild, global warming. If the winter is severe and longer than normal, global warming. Ever get the feeling that those who have a political, social and economic investment in the global warming/lesser freedom movement will never relent, no matter how many apocalyptic deadlines come and go or how much evidence accumulates that man-made emissions are not the primary drivers of climate change?

    Reply
    • Gerald Allen

      Has long as liberals can use it to control people, it will be climate problems.
      Big Al Gore is making money selling his climate credits.

      Reply
    • Michael B.

      It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Climate scientists do not get funded if they show study results that can’t be blamed on global warming. Climate scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC were kicked out of the group. Climate change models did not predict this, so pretty much, everything will be attributed to global warming after the fact.

      Reply
    • Sparky

      People that believe 97% of the world’s scientists are in a grand conspiracy might want to do a couple of things; 1) stop watching Faux News, 2) read less conspiracy fiction, and 3) pick up a National Geographic, Discover magazine or other reputable publication. Big oil pays Republican politicians to deny climate change, but they don’t pay you, so get real.

      Reply
      • crescentfang

        Excuse me, but aren’t I paying more for gas because of ethanol, paying more for electricity because of windmills and solar cells, etc.? Isn’t it true that ethanol doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions when those involved in growing the corn are considered? Why can’t the mandates be stopped if they aren’t a consequence of corrupt politics and nothing else?

      • Michael B.

        That 97% number is a grand stretch of imagination, used for political purposes, and is not fact nor even a scientific survey. The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

        All good science demands peer review, and should be able to stand the challenges. Every single climate model can only account for so many things, and do a poor job of predicting the past world events. Global data has only been available for less than 38 years, until only recently didn’t actually measure temperatures everywhere, especially in the oceans. Anything longer than the past 38 years are predictions of various measurements. The climate models are based on data models, not facts.

        This is too important to not allow challenges, and should be done without politics and people like you name-calling and accusing people of being in the pocket of coal or big oil.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.