This Insane Obsession With Arctic Ice

Arctic ice extent in late summer is less than it was in 1980.  Nobody would know or care if it wasn’t for team climate moron lying about polar bear populations. Somehow these people have convinced the public the location of the September Arctic ice edge somehow affects their lives.

It doesn’t affect their lives in any way shape or form, and there is plenty of ice in the Arctic.

cursnow_alaska.gif (512×512)

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to This Insane Obsession With Arctic Ice

  1. Blade says:

    Not only that Steve, but aren’t they using 15% concentration of Sea-Ice as the threshold for 0% Sea-Ice?

    • Dave N says:

      If you can’t adjust the past like Hansen does, you move the goalposts..

      Trouble is when fishing and mining concerns believe the altered picture, they get a nasty shock when there’s ice in the way.. The smarter ones take their own pictures.

  2. tomwys says:

    The Polar Bear “endangerment finding” has been thoroughly discredited and is only used now by sleazy marketers of plush toys to sell the stuffed bears to “protect the environment.”

    The bears are stuffed with foam while the pockets of the charlatans get stuffed with cash.

    I’m still totally surprised at how long this fraud has continued!!!

  3. Marian says:

    I’m pleased to say.

    I prevented a few people from signing up to save the Arctic/Polar Bear Greenpeace petition. At a local Supermarket. Greenpeace were accosting people as they were going in the supermarket. Soon as they asked me I politely told them where to go and pointed out a few ‘Inconvenient’ Facts too them. It was enough for some of the people who were going to sign their petion to walk away and not sign it. 🙂

    So if you got the facts and not the BS. Some people will listen and not be another pawn for Greenpeace slick propaganda scams.

    • tomwys says:

      Well done, Marian! You’re helping light one dim bulb at a time, and sooner or later (sooner, I hope), people like you will light the world!!!

    • sunsettommy says:

      Did YOU read the entire paper David?

    • johnmcguire says:

      David Appell , the guy who thinks a miniscule amount of man caused co2 controls the entire climate . hahahahahahahahahahaha! What was that man caused co2 percentage again ? Something like 5% of 0.04 of the atmosphere . David Appell is one of the ones who fell for the con. He is one of those that history will call a sucker. Maybe he will think he is in good company with the likes of romm and mckibben . And I don’t care one way or another how low the arctic ice extent goes as it will recover when it is good and ready . The recovery will likely be more in line with Joe Bastardi’s forecast. That is if some twit doesn’t set off a nuclear missile exchange

      • Eric Webb says:

        Lol, and the US contributes 29% of that 5% of .04%. That’s .058%, and take into account that we are only talking about the atmosphere, the oceans have 1000x the energy capacity of the atmosphere so we are really talking about .000058%. So this is what David thinks is controlling climate? Wow, what an idiot.

      • LLAP says:

        @John: “What was that man caused co2 percentage again ? Something like 5% of 0.04 of the atmosphere”

        Man’s contribution is just under 4% of 0.039348% of the atmosphere.

    • Eric Webb says:

      @LLAP, my point exactly, and the US contributes 29% of that 4% of .039348% annually, that means even when you get a really tiny percentage of that, you have to do even more division and divide by 1000 to account for the oceans because we are only talking about the atmosphere and the oceans have 1000x the energy capacity of the atmosphere.

      • LLAP says:

        I’m with you Eric … you are preaching to the choir ;).

      • Eric Webb says:

        Lol, at least someone understands where I’m coming from.

      • David Appell says:

        Do you think scientists are unaware of their own data? Have you tried to understand why they are still concerned about CO2?

      • David, do you understand that climatology is a field in its infancy and scientists are not high priests of knowledge in this research field? 😉

        I’d wager if I linked to 500 sceptical papers on AGW you would find a good reason to dismiss all of them with a hand wave. OK, many of these papers would not be very good but that’s science for you. However, I’m betting would have no trouble fixating on a bunch of really dumb AGW papers and I’m sure you would treat them all with great solemness.

        See the problem?

      • sally says:

        what a bunch of idiots. you can’t even get the stats on CO2 concentrations right.

  4. gator69 says:

    Ice melts. Big deal.

  5. Peter Ellis says:

    Translation: Steve just noticed that the last remaining data source suggesting this might not be a record year (i.e. IMS) is falling off a cliff, and decided to post up one last picture and then insult anyone who cares about it as a weird obsessive. Prepare for a vast array of misdirection over the next month as the records start to fall one by one. Or silence, if he knows what’s best.

    You still wanting to bet on a Jaxa record minimum, Steve? After the last couple of weeks, I’m happy to put £50 on it. (I don’t go above £50 on “for fun” bets like Arctic ice)

  6. Gondo says:

    Missing sea ice has already probably changed atmospheric circulation patterns:

    Jet-stream, anyone?

  7. sod says:

    “This Insane Obsession With Arctic Ice” written by the guy, who posted an extremely long series of blog posts about the “recovery”.

    just a link to Episode No. 9:

  8. ozbilly says:

    Steve. Every second article you write is on Arctic Ice. I’d say you are the one with the insane obsession!

  9. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Steve, I’m curious what data you have to support your statement that the ice edge in no way impacts the lives of polar bears?

    Today’s NSIDC extent is 4.45 million sq-km. That is only 300,000 sq-km above the 2007 minimum extent.

  10. daveburton says:

    Well, there are two people whose lives will be affected by the Arctic ice extent this year: you and that guy you made the bet with!

    Other than that, you’re right: it is of no consequence.

    • Glacierman says:

      Don’t forget about the deposit made for the hall and the caterer and photographer for the big party to celebrate the new minimum, or more accurately, the new headline and talking points for the next year of climate alarism.

  11. leftinbrooklyn says:

    Please, stop with the polar bears already. The fact that they’re still there shows that they are very capable of surviving warmer arctic conditions. Other than agenda promotion, there’s no reason to believe they won’t survive beyond this warm period. If life were that fragile, that unadaptable, do you think we’d be here?

  12. tomwys says:

    From Eric Webb: 8/20 – 4:54
    “Wow, typical David, make an absurd claim or assumption with little factual basis, and hope we are gullible enough to believe it. If that doesn’t work, then just make another baseless claim.”

    Far from baseless!

    Start here, & don’t stop!

  13. Adam Gallon says:

    Since (Despite Mann’s claims) there’s no increase in hurricane numbers or strength, Tornados, heatwaves, droughts or anything else that Global Warming should be producing, having less ice at the North Pole, is leapt upon as proof of CAGW, polar amplification & all that!

  14. HL Mencken says:

    At last Ben–thank you Ben–recalled the fraudulent study that claimed that carcasses of four polar bears (observed from an aircraft but not physically examined) on Alaskan shores had drowned as a result of a scarcity of sea ice causing the bears to swim distances beyond their limits. An ensuing scandal resulted in the suspension of the lead researcher and an investigation by the Interior Department for whom he worked. There remained the potential for fines and terminations for those involved, as of August 2011. The incident should serve as an object lesson for those who would distort data in the pursuit of their narrow personal interests. The bear drowning incident had been used as evidence in support of adding the species to the endangered list.
    HL Mencken

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s