Two Decades Of Unprecedented Global Warming Has Left Arctic Ice Almost The Same As It

[Bfgrn]

North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught

The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early. Douglas Pohl tells the story:

The Passage has become blocked with 5/10 concentrated drifting sea ice at both the eastern and at the western ends of Canada’s Arctic Archipelago. At least 22 yachts and other vessels are in the Arctic at the moment. Some who were less advanced have retreated and others have abandoned their vessels along the way. Still others are caught in the ice in an unfolding, unresolved drama.​

No link...

HERE is why...

North West Passage blocked with ice ? yachts caught | Climate Depot

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe.

Funding

ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].


Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications.

Sorry; forgot the link.

Are you prepared to prove your contention that ClimateDepot made the whole thing up?

While it would be amusing to watch you sputter and fume, I'll just give you the link:

Sail-World.com : North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught

Ahhh, yes, Sail World -- obviously a cover for BIG OIL, cleverly hiding their tracks by using a website dedicated to boats that don't use oil.

Obviously.


Oh, and as far as your CMD link is concerned:

This history of far-left agitation has earned CMD grants from some of the largest left-leaning foundations including the Foundation to Promote Open Society, part of billionaire currency trader George Soros’s progressive philanthropic empire. The Foundation gave CMD $100,000 in 2010.

The left-leaning Tides Foundation has given CMD $160,000 since 2006, including funding a PR Watch “senior researcher” in 2009. The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, another major left-wing foundation which has Lyndon B. Johnson’s former press secretary and PBS host Bill Moyers as its president, has given CMD $250,000 in 2005 and 2006.

In Stauber and Rampton’s day, CMD was directly supported by even more left-wing interests. The duo’s book projects earned grants totaling $47,000 from the Foundation for Deep Ecology, which calls for, among other things, reducing the human population. Despite this history of far-left advocacy and funding, media sources often mistakenly cite CMD’s SourceWatch as an independent watchdog.​

So, they're easily dismissable as partisan hacks.

About Us

This site, created by the Center for Consumer Freedom


Center for Consumer Freedom

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit corporation run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his Washington, D.C.-based for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 “donation” from tobacco company Philip Morris.

Berman arranges for large sums of corporate money to find its way into nonprofit societies of which he is the executive director. He then hires his own company as a consultant to these nonprofit groups. Of the millions of dollars “donated” by Philip Morris between the years 1995 and 1998, 49 percent to 79 percent went directly to Berman or Berman & Co.

Richard Berman is an influence peddler. He has worked out a scheme to funnel charitable donations from wealthy corporations into his own pocket. In exchange, he provides a flurry of disinformation, flawed studies, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and trade-industry articles, as well as access to his high-level government contacts, who are servants of the industries he represents.

Berman’s name might sound familiar. In 1995, Berman and Norm Brinker, his former boss at Steak and Ale Restaurants, were identified as the special-interest lobbyists who donated the $25,000 that disgraced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was hauled before the House Ethics Committee for influence-peddling over the money. Berman and Brinker were lobbying against raising the minimum wage.

Richard Berman is a spin doctor. For example, he has argued against a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) initiative to lower the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers by claiming that the stricter limits would punish responsible social drinkers. He has claimed that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warnings about salmonella-related food poisoning are just “whipping up fear over food.”

Here’s how an internal Philip Morris memo described Berman’s spin: “His proposed solution would broaden the focus of the ‘smoking issue,’ and expand into the bigger picture of over-regulation.” Smoking won’t kill you; over-regulation will.

Berman is “a one-man wrecking crew on important issues.” His approach has been described as “misleading” and “despicable.” Berman has been called “a tobacco company whore,” but he’s branched out since then.

 

[Saigon]

Dave -

Last week you presented a report in which you claimed only 36% of scientists believe in AGW.

And yet anyone who read the report found the actual numbers was 64%.

Here you do the same thing - what you claim is not borne out by the evidence. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth.

May I ask what it is you think you aciheve by lying?

 

[daveman]

Dave -

Last week you presented a report in which you claimed only 36% of scientists believe in AGW.

And yet anyone who read the report found the actual numbers was 64%.

Here you do the same thing - what you claim is not borne out by the evidence. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth.

May I ask what it is you think you aciheve by lying?

I'd ask you the same thing.

The report I posted clearly showed only 36% of scientists believe in AGW that will have catastrophic effects. The rest believe the effects will be moderate or nonexistent, if they believe man is having an impact at all.

And of course, the entire AGW myth is built to influence economies and policies. The majority of scientists simply do not believe it's worth doing anything about.

Period.

Now stop lying about it.

Gotten hold of any of those sailors yet to tell them they're victims of denialist propaganda?

 

[daveman]

​

No link...

HERE is why...

North West Passage blocked with ice ? yachts caught | Climate Depot

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe.

Funding

ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].


Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications.

Sorry; forgot the link.

Are you prepared to prove your contention that ClimateDepot made the whole thing up?

While it would be amusing to watch you sputter and fume, I'll just give you the link:

Sail-World.com : North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught

Ahhh, yes, Sail World -- obviously a cover for BIG OIL, cleverly hiding their tracks by using a website dedicated to boats that don't use oil.

Obviously.


Oh, and as far as your CMD link is concerned:

This history of far-left agitation has earned CMD grants from some of the largest left-leaning foundations including the Foundation to Promote Open Society, part of billionaire currency trader George Soros’s progressive philanthropic empire. The Foundation gave CMD $100,000 in 2010.

The left-leaning Tides Foundation has given CMD $160,000 since 2006, including funding a PR Watch “senior researcher” in 2009. The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, another major left-wing foundation which has Lyndon B. Johnson’s former press secretary and PBS host Bill Moyers as its president, has given CMD $250,000 in 2005 and 2006.

In Stauber and Rampton’s day, CMD was directly supported by even more left-wing interests. The duo’s book projects earned grants totaling $47,000 from the Foundation for Deep Ecology, which calls for, among other things, reducing the human population. Despite this history of far-left advocacy and funding, media sources often mistakenly cite CMD’s SourceWatch as an independent watchdog.​

So, they're easily dismissable as partisan hacks.

About Us

This site, created by the Center for Consumer Freedom


Center for Consumer Freedom

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit corporation run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his Washington, D.C.-based for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 “donation” from tobacco company Philip Morris.

Berman arranges for large sums of corporate money to find its way into nonprofit societies of which he is the executive director. He then hires his own company as a consultant to these nonprofit groups. Of the millions of dollars “donated” by Philip Morris between the years 1995 and 1998, 49 percent to 79 percent went directly to Berman or Berman & Co.

Richard Berman is an influence peddler. He has worked out a scheme to funnel charitable donations from wealthy corporations into his own pocket. In exchange, he provides a flurry of disinformation, flawed studies, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and trade-industry articles, as well as access to his high-level government contacts, who are servants of the industries he represents.

Berman’s name might sound familiar. In 1995, Berman and Norm Brinker, his former boss at Steak and Ale Restaurants, were identified as the special-interest lobbyists who donated the $25,000 that disgraced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was hauled before the House Ethics Committee for influence-peddling over the money. Berman and Brinker were lobbying against raising the minimum wage.

Richard Berman is a spin doctor. For example, he has argued against a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) initiative to lower the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers by claiming that the stricter limits would punish responsible social drinkers. He has claimed that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warnings about salmonella-related food poisoning are just “whipping up fear over food.”

Here’s how an internal Philip Morris memo described Berman’s spin: “His proposed solution would broaden the focus of the ‘smoking issue,’ and expand into the bigger picture of over-regulation.” Smoking won’t kill you; over-regulation will.

Berman is “a one-man wrecking crew on important issues.” His approach has been described as “misleading” and “despicable.” Berman has been called “a tobacco company whore,” but he’s branched out since then.

Yeah? So? Does that mean your sources AREN'T partisan?

 

[Saigon]

The report I posted clearly showed only 36% of scientists believe in AGW that will have catastrophic effects.

Indeed - but I am sure that even you can understand that saying that AGW is occuring but may not be catastrophic is NOT the same as saying AGW does not occur.

Do you genuinely not understand this, or is the problem one of honesty?

 

[daveman]

The report I posted clearly showed only 36% of scientists believe in AGW that will have catastrophic effects.

Indeed - but I am sure that even you can understand that saying that AGW is occuring but may not be catastrophic is NOT the same as saying AGW does not occur.

Do you genuinely not understand this, or is the problem one of honesty?

The problem is one of idiots who insist we spend trillions based on junk science.

You can send every nickel you have to the IPCC and pray to them they'll save you.

But keep your damn hands out of my wallet.

If there are no catastrophic consequences to global warming, it doesn't matter WHAT causes it, does it?

 

[Hoffstra]

the new ice is much thinner than the ice that melted.

 

[Old Rocks]

The title of this thread is "Two decades of unprecedented global warming has left the Arctic Ice almost the same as it was in 1983'. In 1983 the summer low was about 5.4 million sq. km. Today, that ice is at 3.75 million sq. km. Obviously you never completed third grade math, or else you are so full of shit the whites of your eyes are brown.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

 

[daveman]

And yet, oddly, there's 60% more ice this year than last, and in 2007:

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.

Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.

The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’.

He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert
Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’.

He added: ‘This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.’

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

So how'd that work out? Have you guys made a single prediction that came true?

 

[Saigon]

Dave -

Congratulations on, once again, having refused to address the points honestly and openly.

If you have followed Westwall's and Frank's lead and simply abandoned any pretense of wishing to discuss the topic sensibly - why not just admit it?

You can send every nickel you have to the IPCC and pray to them they'll save you.

I haven't given them a cent - and neither have you.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

Congratulations on, once again, having refused to address the points honestly and openly.

If you have followed Westwall's and Frank's lead and simply abandoned any pretense of wishing to discuss the topic sensibly - why not just admit it?

Have you guys made a single prediction that came true?

You can send every nickel you have to the IPCC and pray to them they'll save you.

I haven't given them a cent - and neither have you.

Nor am I going to. I will not fund your cult if I have any say about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dave -

Congratulations on, once again, having refused to address the points honestly and openly.

If you have followed Westwall's and Frank's lead and simply abandoned any pretense of wishing to discuss the topic sensibly - why not just admit it?

Have you guys made a single prediction that came true?

You can send every nickel you have to the IPCC and pray to them they'll save you.

I haven't given them a cent - and neither have you.

Nor am I going to. I will not fund your cult if I have any say about it.

Lordy, lordy. Yes, most of the predictions made by the leading climate scientists have come true.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

Publication Abstracts

Hansen et al. 1981

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dave -

Congratulations on, once again, having refused to address the points honestly and openly.

If you have followed Westwall's and Frank's lead and simply abandoned any pretense of wishing to discuss the topic sensibly - why not just admit it?

Have you guys made a single prediction that came true?

You can send every nickel you have to the IPCC and pray to them they'll save you.

I haven't given them a cent - and neither have you.

Nor am I going to. I will not fund your cult if I have any say about it.[/QUOTE]

I assume, probably wrongly, that you are not one of the 47%, so you will have nothing to say about funding the science concerning the changing science.

 

[Old Rocks]

The report I posted clearly showed only 36% of scientists believe in AGW that will have catastrophic effects.

Indeed - but I am sure that even you can understand that saying that AGW is occuring but may not be catastrophic is NOT the same as saying AGW does not occur.

Do you genuinely not understand this, or is the problem one of honesty?

The problem is one of idiots who insist we spend trillions based on junk science.

You can send every nickel you have to the IPCC and pray to them they'll save you.

But keep your damn hands out of my wallet.

If there are no catastrophic consequences to global warming, it doesn't matter WHAT causes it, does it?

I see. The increase, worldwide, in extreme weather events has not been catastrophic? From fires in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, to drought areas that turn into major flood areas overnight, we have seen an increase in extreme weather events. Catastrophic extreme weather events.

 

[Saigon]

Nor am I going to. I will not fund your cult if I have any say about it.

Have you noticed that every time you are proven wrong - such as when you claimed only 36% of scientists believe in climate change, and your own link suggested 64% was the actual figure - you stop discussing science and switch to politics?

If you KNOW that you cannot make a case with science because the facts are against you - what does that tell you?

 

[Abraham3]

Nor am I going to. I will not fund your cult if I have any say about it.

Have you noticed that every time you are proven wrong - such as when you claimed only 36% of scientists believe in climate change, and your own link suggested 64% was the actual figure - you stop discussing science and switch to politics?

If you KNOW that you cannot make a case with science because the facts are against you - what does that tell you?

I just want to slip this in here.

The survey you mention above which I provided to this forum, was NOT a survey of climate scientists; as were all five of the ~97% surveys mentioned elsewhere. It was a poll of geoscientists and engineers ALL EMPLOYED BY THE CANADIAN OIL INDUSTRY. I find it interesting that a majority of oil industry employees believe AGW to be valid, but it has no relevance to a discussion concerning AGW acceptance among CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

 

[Abraham3]

Hansen et al. 1981

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

1981. That's bloody incredible.