Arctic Sea Ice ^UP^ By 60%. Global Warming?

[Howey]

Here's a better explanation for y'all.

Does record Antarctic sea ice refute global warming? | Fact Checker


What I've seen from climate change deniers is a consistent trend towards thinking change can be shown over a year or two. It can't.

 

[skookerasbil]

ghey

 

[SSDD]

Wow. I just found out that the "global warming" loons are way off of the mark. The Arctic Sea increased sea ice by 60% in 2013. That's huge!!!

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail noted.

"We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped,” Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin told London’s Mail on Sunday.

"The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science," wrote David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in June. "It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability."

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013 | Fox News

Okay loons ... time to find a new strawman!!!

That's just weather. It is only climate change if the ice is decreasing.

 

[DriftingSand]

Wow. I just found out that the "global warming" loons are way off of the mark. The Arctic Sea increased sea ice by 60% in 2013. That's huge!!!

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail noted.

"The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science," wrote David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in June. "It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability."

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013 | Fox News

Okay loons ... time to find a new strawman!!!

That's just weather. It is only climate change if the ice is decreasing.

Ha. Whatever suits today's agenda and creates justification for taxing everyone to death.

 

[SSDD]

To warmist wackos the ends justify the means....even if the ends is really just a bunch of brown people dying young.

 

[mamooth]

The denier motto: When all the science says you're a retard, just declare the declare all the science is a vast global socialist conspiracy!

Most of you deniers are obvious cult retards. You reveal that through your endless idiot conspiracy rants. That's basically why the whole planet now justifiably laughs at you.

 

[DriftingSand]

The denier motto: When all the science says you're a retard, just declare the declare all the science is a vast global socialist conspiracy!

Most of you deniers are obvious cult retards. You reveal that through your endless idiot conspiracy rants. That's basically why the whole planet now justifiably laughs at you.

The "whole planet," in your case, is that small circle of progressives you meet each morning at your local coffee shop.

 

[RollingThunder]

That 60% figure is bogus in several ways. Increases or decreases in Arctic sea ice extent are measured by comparing ice extents at their minimum which occurs in September. Some denier cult propagandists noticed that ice extents were (quite predictably) increasing over the 2012 record low extent and compared the figures in August instead of September. Arctic sea ice extent reached its minimum on Sept 13th this year at 1.97 million square miles. Comparing that to the record minimum of 1.32 m.sq.miles reached on Sept 16th last year, there was a growth in extent of only 49%. In addition, Arctic ice volume has continued to decline steeply so the actual amount of Arctic ice, compared to just the extent, was much less than 49% more than last year's amount.

In reality, the Arctic ice is in steep decline. In 2012, Arctic sea ice extent was 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average, which set a new record low, under the previous record low set in 2007. In 2007, "Arctic sea ice plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent. At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s." (NSIDC)

Natural variability caused the ice extent to go up again slightly after the 2007 record low, just like it did after the record low in 2005, but that did not mean the ice cap was recovering and warming was over. It just took a few years for the ongoing warming trend caused by increased CO2 levels to set a new record low extent in 2012. Similarly, the ice extent has rebounded a bit since that record low in 2012 but it will hit another record low within a few years. Ice extent this year is still around a million square kilometers, or 432,000 sq. miles, below the average extent for the period from 1981 to 2010, which was itself lower than the averages from earlier in the twentieth century. This years ice extent is the sixth lowest on record. In comparison, in the 1950s, Arctic ice extent was around 4.25 million square miles and it was much thicker in most places than it is today.

 

[Staidhup]

Just perhaps this is just another event in the earths countless climatic evolution's. But then again I am not a scientist.

 

[hadit]

The denier motto: When all the science says you're a retard, just declare the declare all the science is a vast global socialist conspiracy!

Most of you deniers are obvious cult retards. You reveal that through your endless idiot conspiracy rants. That's basically why the whole planet now justifiably laughs at you.

The problem with clinging to that philosophy is this:

Science will often come out with something that politicians or those thusly inclined to do so seize upon as a means to increase their power and influence over the daily lives of others. We saw it happen with DDT, and instead of finding a way it could be more safely used to reduce the scourge of Malaria, condemned poor brown children around the world to largely preventable death. We saw it with the Alar scare, which placed Hollywood actresses in the role of scientific experts and nearly decimated an industry, all over a substance that had been safely used for 50 years. We saw it again with coffee. Now it's bad, now it's not bad. Wine is bad, no it's actually good. Don't eat eggs, eggs are okay. High cholesterol leads to heart disease and death, women with higher cholesterol live longer. And on it goes. The problem is not usually science, which can correct itself when the evidence gets so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. The problem is the power hungry who grab a scientific factoid, whether strongly supported or not, and use it to increase their control.

Given where we are at right now, is it smarter to attempt reversing a cycle that seems to have stalled the last 15 years and is largely out of our control (seeing that no matter what America does, the developing world will continue increasing their standard of living), or is it smarter to prepare for inevitable change that would happen whether man was here or not?

 

[RollingThunder]

The denier motto: When all the science says you're a retard, just declare the declare all the science is a vast global socialist conspiracy!

Most of you deniers are obvious cult retards. You reveal that through your endless idiot conspiracy rants. That's basically why the whole planet now justifiably laughs at you.

The problem with clinging to that philosophy is this:

Science will often come out with something that politicians or those thusly inclined to do so seize upon as a means to increase their power and influence over the daily lives of others. We saw it happen with DDT, and instead of finding a way it could be more safely used to reduce the scourge of Malaria, condemned poor brown children around the world to largely preventable death.

You are sooooo full of rightwingnut, myths, misinformation and bullshit, it just pours out your ears. You betray that fact right here and make everything else you say suspect. You're either a deliberate liar or you're a bamboozled brainwashed delusional rightwingnut dupe of your puppet-masters' propaganda. The restrictions on the use of DDT were fully justified and never caused any recent able deaths. That's strictly a fallacious rightwingnut myth.

Here's the actual facts about DDT, which are very different from the fraudulent myths that you rightwingnuts have fallen for. Please note that every fact is linked to the scientific references that back it up. I'm assuming that you might have an attention span somewhat greater than a fruitfly, unlike most of your fellow denier cultists, so hopefully you will manage to actually read the true facts presented here, about which you are now so confused and misled.

DDT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)
In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"[19] and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India.[20] However widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.[21] The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".[22]

DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.[21] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.[22][23]

...The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 19711972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDTan exemption allowed for public health uses under some conditions.[12] Immediately after the cancellation was announced, both EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against the EPA, with the industry seeking to overturn the ban, and EDF seeking a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.[12]

The U.S. DDT ban took place amidst a growing public mistrust of industry, with the Surgeon General issuing a report on smoking in 1964, the Cuyahoga River catching fire in 1969, the fiasco surrounding the use of diethylstilbestrol (DES), and the well-publicized decline in the bald eagle population.[25]

Some uses of DDT continued under the public health exemption. For example, in June 1979, the California Department of Health Services was permitted to use DDT to suppress flea vectors of bubonic plague.[27] DDT also continued to be produced in the US for foreign markets until as late as 1985, when over 300 tonnes were exported.[1]

Restrictions on usage

In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[28] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. Vector control use has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.

The Stockholm Convention, which took effect in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted DDT use to vector control. The Convention has been ratified by more than 170 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that total elimination in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, public health use is exempt from the ban pending acceptable alternatives. Malaria Foundation International states, "The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations...For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."[29]

Despite the worldwide ban, agricultural use continues in India[30] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[14]Today, about 3-4,000 tonnes each year are produced for vector control.[13] DDT is applied to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitoes. This intervention, called indoor residual spraying (IRS), greatly reduces environmental damage. It also reduces the incidence of DDT resistance.[31] For comparison, treating 40 hectares (99 acres) of cotton during a typical U.S. growing season requires the same amount of chemical as roughly 1,700 homes.[32]

Environmental impact

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is extremely hydrophobic and strongly absorbed by soil. Depending on conditions, its soil half life can range from 22 days to 30 years. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. When applied to aquatic ecosystems it is quickly absorbed by organisms and by soil or it evaporates, leaving little DDT dissolved in the water itself. Its breakdown products and metabolites, DDE and DDD, are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties.[1] DDT and its breakdown products are transported from warmer regions of the world to the Arctic by the phenomenon of global distillation, where they then accumulate in the region's food web.[33]

Because of its lipophilic properties, DDT has a high potential to bioaccumulate, especially in predatory birds.[34] DDT, DDE, and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptor birds concentrating more chemicals than other animals in the same environment. They are very lipophilic and are stored mainly in body fat. DDT and DDE are very resistant to metabolism; in humans, their half-lives are 6 and up to 10 years, respectively. In the United States, these chemicals were detected in almost all human blood samples tested by the Centers for Disease Control in 2005, though their levels have sharply declined since most uses were banned in the US.[35] Estimated dietary intake has also declined,[35] although FDA food tests commonly detect it.[36]DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects, including marine animals such as crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals, but may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stage. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle,[7] brown pelican[38] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT.[1] Even in 2010, more than forty years after the U.S. ban, California condors which feed on sea lions at Big Sur which in turn feed in the Palos Verdes Shelf area of the Montrose Chemical Superfund site seemed to be having continued thin-shell problems. Scientists with the Ventana Wildlife Society and others are intensifying studies and remediations of the condors' problems.[39]DDT and DDE have been linked to diabetes. A number of studies from the US, Canada, and Sweden have found that the prevalence of the disease in a population increases with serum DDT or DDE levels.[49][50][51][52][53][54]

DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine disrupting activity has been observed in mice and rat toxicological studies, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. The US Environmental Protection Agency states that DDT exposure damages the reproductive system and reduces reproductive success. These effects may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity:

* A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[23]

* Human epidemiological studies suggest that exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed.[55] Some 21st century researchers argue that these effects may increase infant deaths, offsetting any anti-malarial benefits.[56] A 2008 study, however, failed to confirm the association between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[57]

* Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 University of California, Berkeley study suggests that children exposed while in the womb have a greater chance of development problems,[58] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[59] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[60] Similarly, Mexican researchers have linked first trimester DDE exposure to retarded psychomotor development.[61]

* Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from IRS).[62][63][64]

* Studies generally find that high blood DDT or DDE levels do not increase time to pregnancy (TTP.)[65] There is some evidence that the daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting pregnant (i.e. increased TTP).[66]

* DDT is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses."[67] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT.[68]

* A Japanese study of congenital hypothyroidism concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an important role in the incidence and/or causation of cretinism."[69] Other studies have also found the DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function.[70][71]

Occupational exposure in agriculture and malaria control has been linked to neurological problems (i.e. Parkinsons)[72] and asthma.[73]

DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen," the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen, and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 "probable" carcinogens. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][23]

There is evidence from epidemiological studies (i.e. studies in human populations) that indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver,[23][35] pancreas[23][35] and breast.[35] There is mixed evidence that it contributes to leukemia,[35] lymphoma[35][74] and testicular cancer.[23][35][75] Other epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE does not cause multiple myeloma,[23] or cancers of the prostate,[23] endometrium,[23][35] rectum,[23][35] lung,[35] bladder,[35] or stomach.[35]

The question of whether DDT or DDE are risk factors of breast cancer has been repeatedly studied. While individual studies conflict, the most recent reviews of all the evidence conclude that pre-puberty exposure increases the risk of subsequent breast cancer.[35][76]

Mosquito resistance

Resistance has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[90] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[21]

Resistance was noted early in spray campaigns. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that "resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years."[19] DDT has lost much of its effectiveness in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[91]

In many parts of India, DDT has also largely lost its effectiveness.[92] Agricultural uses were banned in 1989, and its anti-malarial use has been declining. Urban use has halted completely.[93] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used,[94] and one study had concluded that "DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."[95]

DDT can still be effective against resistant mosquitoes,[97] and the avoidance of DDT-sprayed walls by mosquitoes is an additional benefit of the chemical.[95] For example, a 2007 study reported that resistant mosquitoes avoided treated huts. The researchers argued that DDT was the best pesticide for use in IRS (even though it did not afford the most protection from mosquitoes out of the three test chemicals) because the others pesticides worked primarily by killing or irritating mosquitoesencouraging the development of resistance to these agents.[97] Others argue that the avoidance behavior slows the eradication of the disease.[98] Unlike other insecticides such as pyrethroids, DDT requires long exposure to accumulate a lethal dose; however its irritant property shortens contact periods. "For these reasons, when comparisons have been made, better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT."[91] In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[99]

Human exposure

People living in areas where DDT is used for IRS have high levels of the chemical and its breakdown products in their bodies. Compared to contemporaries living where DDT is not used, South Africans living in sprayed homes have levels that are several orders of magnitude greater.[35] Breast milk in regions where DDT is used against malaria greatly exceeds the allowable standards for breast-feeding infants.[101][102][103] These levels are associated with neurological abnormalities in babies.[91][101][102]

Most studies of DDT's human health effects have been conducted in developed countries where DDT is not used and exposure is relatively low. Many experts urge that alternatives be used instead of IRS.[23][35] Epidemiologist Brenda Eskenazi argues, "We know DDT can save lives by repelling and killing disease-spreading mosquitoes. But evidence suggests that people living in areas where DDT is used are exposed to very high levels of the pesticide. The only published studies on health effects conducted in these populations have shown profound effects on male fertility. Clearly, more research is needed on the health of populations where indoor residual spraying is occurring, but in the meantime, DDT should really be the last resort against malaria rather than the first line of defense."[104]

Illegal diversion to agriculture is also a concern, as it is almost impossible to prevent, and its subsequent use on crops is uncontrolled. For example, DDT use is widespread in Indian agriculture,[105] particularly mango production,[106] and is reportedly used by librarians to protect books.[107] Other example include Ethiopia, where DDT intended for malaria control is reportedly being used in coffee production,[108] and Ghana where it is used for fishing."[109][110] The residues in crops at levels unacceptable for export have been an important factor in recent bans in several tropical countries.[91] Adding to this problem is a lack of skilled personnel and supervision.[98]

Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

Critics claim that restricting DDT in vector control have caused unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands,[111] to millions. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[112] These arguments have been dismissed as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios. May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible."[83] Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize this notion as a "myth" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[113][114]Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[115] Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding: "It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity.""

It has also been alleged that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According to a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[116] Roger Bate asserts, "many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID]."[117]

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the focus of much criticism. While the agency is currently funding the use of DDT in some African countries,[118] in the past it did not. When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it wasn't "politically correct," Anne Peterson, the agency's assistant administrator for global health, replied that "I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT ... So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy."[119] USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted."[120] The Agency's website states that "USAID has never had a 'policy' as such either 'for' or 'against' DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years [2006/07] has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in generalwith DDT or any other insecticideas an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa."[118] The website further explains that in many cases alternative malaria control measures were judged to be more cost-effective that DDT spraying, and so were funded instead.[121]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

#RollingThunderisaCutnPasteRetard

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Samson]

#RollingThunderisaCutnPasteRetard

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

But.....putting on a poster makes it true.



Right?

 

[RollingThunder]

And there's the drooling idiocy that always follows the debunking of one of the rightwingnuts' cherished delusional myths.

 

[Samson]

In comparison, in the 1950s, Arctic ice extent was around 4.25 million square miles and it was much thicker in most places than it is today.

Interesting.

I did not realize that in 1950 they had the same technology to measure ice as they do today.




It doesn't appear there has been much technological advancement in the ice measuring department.

 

[Samson]

And there's the drooling idiocy that always follows the debunking of one of the rightwingnuts' cherished delusional myths.

Well, don't be so hard on yourself......anyone could use 26 font by mistake......

 

[Staidhup]

Rolling Thunder its time to get that oxygen tank refilled!

 

[skookerasbil]

The denier motto: When all the science says you're a retard, just declare the declare all the science is a vast global socialist conspiracy!

Most of you deniers are obvious cult retards. You reveal that through your endless idiot conspiracy rants. That's basically why the whole planet now justifiably laughs at you.

lol.....particularly miserable today s0n huh??!

What happened......cat turn you down for a poke?

 

[skookerasbil]

Thunder s0n.......font not big enough for me to see!!!!


Try THIS >>>


IM


A










Think its #7.....arial black.

 

[RollingThunder]

In comparison, in the 1950s, Arctic ice extent was around 4.25 million square miles and it was much thicker in most places than it is today.

Interesting. I did not realize that in 1950 they had the same technology to measure ice as they do today. It doesn't appear there has been much technological advancement in the ice measuring department.

Another denier cult 'straw-man' argument and a really stupid one at that. Nobody said that they had "the same technology" in the 1950s, moron. But did you imagine that everyone then was blind and stupid? Do you think that there were no records kept in that era? Do you imagine that everything before the beginning of satellite observations is just a featureless blur to scientists? Just how retarded are you?