Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record Growth

ScreenHunter_10726 Oct. 09 07.15

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

After the shortest melt season on record, Arctic sea ice extent has grown almost two million km² and is now approaching the highest extent for the date in the last ten years.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado of course fails to mention any of this in their October 6 report.

ScreenHunter_10727 Oct. 09 07.20 Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

About stevengoddard

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

53 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Record Growth

  1. gator69 says:

    Yes, everyone gets a trophy, even fourth place.

  2. Ron Clutz says:

    2015 Arctic ice extent was below 5M km2 (2014 minimum) for only 28 days. Obsessing over 1 month (September) is just wrong.

  3. John Silver says:

    We can deduce that the Manbearpig is going to gay Parie.
    How much fun we will have when it snows in France in the beginning of December.

  4. Neal S says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if a number of events prior to the December thing, made it plainly obvious that the AGW crowd are lying about practically everything.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      It’s likely only a fond dream. The current long-range weather forecasts don’t support it. However, the idea that the forecasts can drastically change is not without hope.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    This just means the Paris-ites will be just that much more desperate to ram through an agreement that strips nations of their National Sovereignty and allows the UNELECTED, TOTALLY CORRUPT UN bureauRats the ability to directly TAX the citizens of the world.

    This is the 35 page detailed UN document entitled: Draft outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (I am waiting for my blood pressure to go down before I read the darn thing.)

    The International Banksters of course are pushing this for all they are worth.
    Financing the Post-2015 Development Agenda

    The World Bank Group, the IMF and multilateral development banks – AfDB, ADB, EBRD, EIB and IDB – are working together to support the financing effort for the post-2015 development agenda (Joint Statement from MDBs and IMF Head on Financing for Development, April 16, 2015). These institutions have outlined their initial commitments to scale up the amount of financing, moving from “billions” in official development assistance to “trillions” in development investments of all kinds: public and private, national and global. This work was shared at a meeting of the World Bank Group-IMF Development Committee on April 18, 2015…

    ….The proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) encourage every country to end poverty and enhance social and economic development in a sustainable manner. These goals will not be achieved with a business-as-usual approach.….

    And out of WHOSE pockets are all those trillions supposed to come? The West is already up to their ears in ‘unsustainable’ debt!

    2013: The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation

    ..The report itself says:

    “The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)”

    [Translation]..all households with positive net wealth—everyone with retirement savings or home equity—would have their assets plundered under the IMF’s formulation…. such a repudiation of private property will not pay off Western governments’ debts or fund budgets going forward. It will merely “restore debt sustainability,” allowing free-spending sovereigns to keep tapping the bond markets until the next crisis comes along…

    Do you have 10% of your home equity squirreled away so you can pay this one-off tax? (Remember they will have already raided your other assets and stripped 10%)

    Steven Yates, five years ago wrote From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: Thoughts on the New World Order

    In short the goals were:
    1. A global “peacekeeping force,” publicly endorsed Wednesday by Bill Clinton.

    2. An International Criminal Court (It now exists: “..The International Criminal Court
    The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent international judicial body capable of trying individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so…”
    That is the court where the ClimAstrologists want to haul skeptics. BTW.)

    3. A global system of taxation. That is what CAGW has always been about.

    4. Global coerced redistribution of wealth and income. That is to be part of the Paris-ite agreement.

    8. International public education (Think Common Core)

    9. International equivalents of affirmative action and minimum wage laws. (So much for Obama’s $15/hr wage. I wonder if the Unions are aware of this?)

    10. Complete absolution of past debts: [Governments should] “cancel the debts of developing countries…” (Realize US tax payers are the major source of funds for the World Bank so this is US tax payer assets being written off — not that we have any claim on those assets anymore, we just get stuck paying the Federal Debt.)

    11. Universal gun registration: the UN should “expand the UN Arms register in order to show production and sale of small arms and light weapons. (Obama already Signed this treaty, June 3, 2013.)

    12. Strengthening UN power generally: “A major task of the world community in the twenty-first century will be to strengthen and greatly enhance the role of the United Nations in the global context. Governments must recommit themselves to the realization of the goals and mandates of the United Nations Charter.

    13. Elimination of veto power. (One nation can no longer over ride the ‘will’ of the rest of the vultures. — A pack of wolves voting to help themselves to what wealth is left in the USA.)

    • shazaam says:

      Government can only exist with the consent of the governed. When the costs of government outweigh the so-called benefits, consent is withdrawn. When the laws are applied to the “little people” and the “rulers” appear to be exempt (think Hillary) consent dwindles as the concept of justice starts to look more and more like a rigged shell game.

      They (politicians and bankers) really screwed-up exempting themselves from the rule-of-law, nothing loses trust and support faster than a blatant double-standard.

      It is looking like that consent is dwindling rapidly.

      • gator69 says:

        Sorry, but us bankers are not to blame. I did not vote for Obama, Clinton, or Carter. And this banker, like most, is for smaller government and transparency.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Note I am distinguishing the small town/state bankers from the INTERNATIONAL BANKSTERS. E. M. Smith said they are no longer ‘just Bankers’ but have branched. I am sorry that you do not like the facts gator, but the big international bankers, especially those controling the IMF, World Bank & The Bank for International Settlements control this world.

          Network of 147 Companies Controls Nearly 40% of Global Economic Value of Transnational Corporations

          When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

          The paper: The Network of Global Corporate Control

          Top 25 control-holders from above:

          The way these entities control so much is through investing YOUR money and splitting off control while limiting their financial exposure. It is a real win-win-win for them since they not only get control of the stock they also get paid no matter what happens. This is done via mutual funds or the like where YOUR money is invested but THEY vote the stock. SEE A Brief History Of The Mutual Fund


          1 BARCLAYS PLC – a global financial services holding company with 5 business segments: Personal and Corporate Banking, mortgages, investment management, credit card
          2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, maintained by Capital Bank and Trust Company (“trustee”), which has retained an affiliate to serve as investment adviser to the trustee for the CITs. comment on the proposed rule known as the “Volcker Rule”
          3 FMR CORP Fidelity Investments is a mutual fund owned and voted by the Johnson family.
          4 AXA – France, Retail banking, Asset management and other financial services, insurance large multinational companies, IT service provider
          5 STATE STREET CORPORATION – world’s leading providers of
          financial services to institutional investors
          6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. – a leading global financial services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United States , with operations worldwide.
          7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC – a British multinational financial services company headquartered in London, provides various insurance products and services worldwide.
          8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., – mutual funds
          9 UBS AG CH – Financial services for private, corporate and institutional clients
          10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. – the wealth management division of Bank of America, provides investment, financing, and other related services
          11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. – investment management in global capital markets.
          12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG – banking products and services like private banking, business banking insurance, investment, wealth management
          13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. – a global investment management organization
          14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP CH – integrated global bank
          15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC – operates as a financial services company. It is a a family limited liability company used to invest the funds owned by the Waltons, owners of Walmart and Sam’s Club.
          16 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. – Providing financial services to institutions, corporations, and high net worth individuals. (Well they aren’t shy are they?)
          17 NATIXIS – the international corporate, investment management and financial services arm of Groupe BPCE, the second-largest banking player in France.
          18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., – global investment banking, securities and investment management firm
          19 T. ROWE PRICE GROUP, INC. – Mutual Funds
          20 LEGG MASON, INC. – global investment management firm
          21 MORGAN STANLEY – investment firm specializing in wealth management, investment banking
          22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. – Consumer, Corporate & Investment Banking, Asset Management
          23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION – banking to corporations
          24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE – French bank
          – An American multinational banking and financial services corporation. It is the second largest bank holding company in the United States by assets.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Lincoln said,

          “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”

          A Trillionaires Delight

          Somewhere in the trillionaires room of Heaven three old codgers are sitting around a table smoking cigars and chuckling over the J. P Morgan Chase & Company buyout of Bear Stearns for a paltry $2.00 a share. Not so much because the price had been over $130 a share a few weeks earlier but because the Federal Reserve Board put up $30 billion of the government’s money to guarantee the sale.

          Yes, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, patriarchs of three of the most powerful family fortunes in history have waited nearly two centuries to see their dreams fulfilled. Perhaps such patience is why their families have remained successful by steadfastly maintaining the rules of the game as set down by their founders.
          In time the House of Rothschild was able to take control of the Bank of France and Bank of England and relentlessly pursued an effort over two centuries to control a national bank in the USA. By 1850 it was said the Rothschild family was worth over $6 billion and owned one half of the world’s wealth.

          From oil (Shell) to diamonds (DeBeers) to gold (from 1919 until 2004 a Rothschild was permanent Chairman of the London Gold Fixing committee which met twice a day in the Rothschild offices in London) the Rothschild’s quietly accumulated a foothold in critical industries and commodities throughout the world.

          A master at building impenetrable walls around his family assets the current value of the Rothschild holdings are estimated to be between $100 and $300 trillion….

          The above article goes on and relates the history of the fight between European Banking interests and the US government on whether or not they would take control of the USA via control of our nation’s money.

          This article looks at the Tea Party/anti-IRS tax protesters that the MSM calls ‘crazy’

          …Americans consistently fought against schemes to adapt Central Banks, primarily because of their infamous track record for subverting government and dominating societies. The early builders of this country were well aware of the folly in allowing private banks to control the finances of an entire nation:

          “The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson

          “Mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges… which are employed altogether for their benefit. ” – Andrew Jackson [escaped an assassination attempt on January 30, 1835]

          “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.

          Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.” -Abraham Lincoln [assassinated]

          “The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency. Creating and issuing money is the supreme prerogative of government and is its greatest creative opportunity. Adopting these principles will save the taxpayers immense sums of interest and money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity.” – Abraham Lincoln [assassinated]

          “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce”. – James A. Garfield [assassinated]

          There is a lot more history and then the article says,

          ….After extensive accounting of where taxpayer funds are allocated, the Grace Commission came to a startling conclusion:

          “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.” – Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan – January 15, 1984

          So, if every penny of the income tax goes to interest on Federal Debt, where are the Trillions of dollars required to run the U.S. coming from? All foreign investments combined could not account for the massive sums needed. The answer is quite simple: The Federal Reserve creates and lends the money, continuing the debt cycle, which as we all now know is leading to hyperinflation.

          Essentially, not one penny of your income taxes goes to funding the programs and services you expect from Government, including schools, roads, sanitation, etc. Most of these services are actually covered by State taxes and taxes on goods such as gasoline, toll roads, along with many others.

          So then this epiphany begs us to ask a very important question: If none of our income taxes go towards the government services we require, and all of it is going towards the debt being needlessly generated by a group of private Central Bankers who answer to no one, why should we pay the income tax?….

        • gator69 says:

          Dodd-Frank is proof positive that banks do not run the world, or this country.

        • rah says:

          Well I hope your bank has cut their ties to the US Chamber of Commerce. Those butt heads have really shown their true colors over the last few years and they ain’t Red White and Blue for sure.

        • gator69 says:

          Actually, we have cut ties with the COC. We found a better association.

      • Gail Combs says:

        It is looking like that consent is dwindling rapidly.

        It certainly does, from
        The Rasmussen Reports:
        19% Think Federal Government Has Consent of the Governed.

        26% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

        59% of GOP Voters Say Republicans in Congress Out of Touch with Party’s Base

        April 18, 2014 – Forty-seven percent (47%) of Likely U.S. Voters do not Fear the Federal Government. … 54% consider the federal government today a threat to individual liberty rather than a protector. Just 22% see the government as a protector of individual rights, and that’s down from 30% last November.

        September 10, 2015 …just nine percent (9%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job overall, while 63% rate the current Congress poorly. …just 18% think most congressmen care what their constituents think.

        July 09, 2015 – Is Congress for Sale? … Voters think most members of Congress do a lousy job and probably have sold their vote for cash or to a contributor. … Only 16% don’t think most members of Congress would sell their vote. ….Just 31% of voters think their local congressional representative agrees with them ideologically. Men feel more strongly than women do that Congress is for sale.

        June 18, 2015 Voters Don’t Want Big Government, But They Think It’s Back — Nearly 20 years ago, Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over.(ROTFLMAO!!!) Two decades later, voters wish that were true. …just 18% of Likely U.S. Voters think the era of big government is over

        June 17, 2015 Voters see an overly powerful government as a bigger danger in the world than an under-powered one. 62% Say Government Has Too Much Power in America. Today Nearly two-out-of-three Americans believe the government has too much power in this country and that too many of their fellow countrymen are dependent on the government for financial support.

        Another method is to look at the actual withdrawal of support for governments. Shadow Economies Grow as People Flee High Taxes and Stiff Regulations

        Otherwise legal off-the-books economic activity is on the rise again in much of the world, says a new report, with the “shadow economy” comprising huge chunks of many nation’s economies. There’s no need for speculation as to why, say the authors. High taxes and stringent regulations have made it very attractive and even necessary for people to earn their keep and conduct their business out of sight of tax collectors and bureaucrats. Not surprisingly, the report recommends tax reduction and deregulation as keys to getting people back into the official economy where they can contribute to governmental coffers,…

        While the United States has traditionally had a proportionally small shadow economy when compared to other countries, American economists and pundits have recently noted that it seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, with tax compliance dropping and the gap between the income Americans are thought to have earned and what they’re reporting now adding up to two trillion dollars. That may well be because the U.S. is acquiring a European-sized government and stiffer regulations.

        If the U.S. adopts the taxes and regulations of other over-governed countries, we get their shadow economies, too. Surprise.

    • DD More says:

      Gail, would that be the same World Bank and IMF that has a 4 step plan for any nation to be taken over and stripped of assets.

      Step One is Privatization – which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, national leaders – using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics – happily flogged their electricity and water companies at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

      Step Two Capital Market Liberalization. – Stiglitz calls this the “Hot Money” cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

      Step Three: Market-Based Pricing w/ Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, “The IMF riot.” This economic arson has it’s bright side – for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices. A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn.

      Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their “poverty reduction strategy” Free Trade. Taking a World Bank loan for a school ‘triggers’ a requirement to accept every ‘conditionality’ – they average 111 per nation – laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

      Writen in 2001 with examples of 1995 Russia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Ethiopia and Brazil. Greece is just the latest in line.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Good concise description.

        I usually use The Whirled Bank Group’s description of the Structural Adjustment Program

        But that one is a better description.

        This one is good too:

        “Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal.

        With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988…..

      • Gail Combs says:

        That isn’t just some nobody economist speaking!

        The World Bank’s former Chief Economist’s accusations are eye-popping – including how the IMF and US Treasury fixed the Russian elections

        “It has condemned people to death,” the former apparatchik told me. This was like a scene out of Le Carre. The brilliant old agent comes in from the cold, crosses to our side, and in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of a political ideology he now realizes has gone rotten.

        And here before me was a far bigger catch than some used Cold War spy. Joseph Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank. To a great extent, the new world economic order was his theory come to life.

        I “debriefed” Stigltiz over several days, at Cambridge University, in a London hotel and finally in Washington in April 2001 during the big confab of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing the meetings of ministers and central bankers, Stiglitz was kept exiled safely behind the blue police cordons, the same as the nuns carrying a large wooden cross, the Bolivian union leaders, the parents of AIDS victims and the other ‘anti-globalization’ protesters. The ultimate insider was now on the outside.

        In 1999 the World Bank fired Stiglitz. He was not allowed quiet retirement; US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, I’m told, demanded a public excommunication for Stiglitz’ having expressed his first mild dissent from globalization World Bank style…..

  6. Ron Clutz says:

    Borrowing money to spend on a solution that won’t work for a problem that doesn’t exist claiming legal authority they don’t have. Sounds like a winner.

  7. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Wasn’t Carbon dioxide, aka “carbon pollution” meant to have melted Arctic sea ice completely away by now?
    Why then is Arctic Sea Ice currently breaking record growth cycles?
    Am I missing something?

  8. AndyG55 says:

    Slightly OT, but a great article on JoNova about Chinese CO2

    Shows the utter futility and stupidity of any carbon tax or similar that drives manufacturing to China.

    It will ALWAYS lead to massively INCREASED global CO2 emissions.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes, that was a great article.

      Interesting that there is a SUSTAINABILITY push that you should only by locally grown food but everything else (including your job) can be exported oversea with the associated transport costs.

      Too bad the Progressive Useful Idiot can’t think their way out of a paper bag.

      OH, speaking about Progressives, I wandered onto a site yesterday where they had an bit of news/propaganda and at the end you rated the article by how it made you FEEL. I wandered around the site and all the articles had that type of rating.

      Wee bit of psychological experimentation going on there?

      (Sorry I did not keep the link)

  9. Koop in VA says:

    Shocker that I would actually post and point out some obvious points. But before I do I will admit that apparently Tony and I are operating off of differing government data. He chooses to exaggerate the data for some reason but here is what is also known.

    In mid-September when Tony posted one of his first “record arctic sea ice growth” articles, the arctic sea ice anomaly was -1.425 million sq. kms. He posted another a couple of weeks later and the anomaly was -1.533 million sq kms. He now posts another one and I think the anomaly is -1.761. My guess is that it will go up a bit further and may even break -2M sq kms this year, which would, I believe, be the 4th lowest in the last 35 years.

    So the sea ice extent is continuing to fall behind the average ice extent for this time of year and yet there is “record growth” and it is continuing. Anybody here intellectually honest enough to admit that the data is mixed and that the claim that there is record sea ice growth isn’t exactly true?

    Further, anybody here want to make predictions about sea ice extent in the next few weeks based off of this graph?

    As I said, I think that the anomaly is going to grow (i.e. head to -1.8, -1.9 or even -2.0) in the near future. If there were record growth it will shrink and move to -1.3 or lower rather quickly since Tony says we have had record sea ice growth when the anomaly was -1.425.

    The other thing I would point out is that NSIDC recently said that old ice actually shrank. Several people here were saying that it has been increasing and will continue to do so. So is there another metric out there that shows that in 2015 that old ice increased? If so, could somebody show me a link.

    • Andy Oz says:

      Tony wrote “Record Growth”. Growth means rate of increase.
      2015 has the steepest incline of any September- October on the ice extent charts going back to 1979. That’s record growth due to the Arctic being very very cold below minus 20C.
      NSIDC 2015 chart shows older ice survival has increasing trend since 2007
      Most long termers here know a lot of old ice was expelled through Fram Strait in 2007. It appears since then that, from NSIDC data as the Arctic is cooling Y-O-Y, the sea ice age, extent and snow coverage is increasing. It has definitely NOT “All Disappeared” as Al Gore, James Hansen and the UNIPCC require us to believe. Their own data shows it.

      • Koop in VA says:

        Thanks for the links. But I just don’t get the argument.

        You say that the arctic extent is increasing year over year. In September 2014 NSIDC has the extent at 5.3M sq kms. In September 2015 it is 4.6M sq kms. That would seem to be decreasing, not increasing.

        As for the sea ice age, your third link seems to show that older ice has also decreased the last two years, not increased.

        I do get that Tony is using 30% coverage and the data I link to, I believe, is 15% coverage. So at different coverages the data is going to diverge and that is fine. But I must admit that I’m missing something on the difference between the 30% and 15% and would appreciate being shown the error of my thinking.

        I thought that NSIDC shows ice coverage that has at least 15% ice. I thought Tony’s maps show ice coverage that is at least 30% in coverage. Since more sea would be at covered at 15% rather than at 30% I would think that the 15% figure would go up faster. But according to Tony’s graphs its not. So I think I’m missing something fairly basic that you all may understand better than I do.

        So I guess the question is: why would 30% extent grow faster than 15% extent?

        • Scott says:

          Koop –

          The data you frequently refer to is sea-ice area, not extent. As to the discrepancies, the metrics were all over the board this year. Much less agreement between agencies than normal…I don’t understand why.


        • Andy Oz says:

          Older ice has increased between 2007 satellite era minimum and now 2015. So what if 2015 year is less that 2013. Is 2015 minimum higher than 2007 and 2012?
          Answer – yes. Trend is up.
          For clarity, what does record growth mean? It means ice extent is growing at record pace. While below is not DMI data as shown above, which shows 2 million sq km growth since 2015 minimum, you should get the concept.

          Comparing sea ice area Day 250 vs Day 275
          2015 3.11 Mill 3.91 Mill = 0.9 Mill growth
          2014 3.57 Mill 4.16 Mill = 0.59 Mill growth
          2013 3.57 Mill 4.30 Mill = 0.73 Mill growth
          2012 2.29 Mill 2.90 Mill = 0.61 Mill growth

          From what I’ve read of your comments, you seem to be very much like David Appell, who constantly trolls this website under multiple persona. As such, maybe the other regular visitors can amuse you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          gees Andy.. likening Chicken-coop to the rotten Appell..

          That’s cruel… even if correct.

        • Koop in VA says:

          Once again, due to the format of the comments section, I’ll respond to myself but this is a comment due to Scott.

          Scott, good point. You are absolutely correct that I have been posting graphs and speaking of them as extent when they are actually area. That is my bad. It was not intentional and I hope not to make that error in the future. If I do, please call me on it as it can rightly be viewed more as intentional on my part because you have corrected me.

          I had read this before at NSIDC but all of us should be clear on ice extent and area. So this is is a description of the difference:

          Area and extent are different measures and give scientists slightly different information. Some organizations, including Cryosphere Today, report ice area; NSIDC primarily reports ice extent. Extent is always a larger number than area, and there are pros and cons associated with each method.

          A simplified way to think of extent versus area is to imagine a slice of swiss cheese. Extent would be a measure of the edges of the slice of cheese and all of the space inside it. Area would be the measure of where there is cheese only, not including the holes. That is why if you compare extent and area in the same time period, extent is always bigger. A more precise explanation of extent versus area gets more complicated.

          Now, that is the scientific explanation. I will have to give it some consideration as to whether my position should change based on the extent vs area difference. I would be welcome to input as to how to properly view this difference especially in light of the disagreement I’ve had with Tony on his “record sea Ice growth” claim and my juxtaposition against sea ice area growth.

        • Gail Combs says:

          David the Appalling is over at Jo Nova’s trying to give Dr David Evans a hard time. (And anyone else who will argue with him.)

  10. @Gail Combs,
    Thanks for your amazing research. That quote from Abraham Lincoln got me thinking. How could the founding fathers and “Honest Abe” be so smart and our current rulers so dumb?

    Then I remembered that all forms of government tend towards oligarchy. While Gator66 seems to have his heart in the right place the upper levels of the banking fraternity are “Enemies of the People” (Ibsen). Who are the other members of the Oligarchy? Maybe the bankers are the puppet masters.

    I am in North Carolina every month but I am so busy that I have not had time to meet with you. Bless you for your energy, passion and common sense.

    • gator69 says:

      Hey GC! My heart and brain are both in the right place. The people you call “bankers”, are not “bankers” at all, but very wealthy political players. My grandfather was a banker, and I am a banker, and bankers are not the problem.

      The problem is an oversized and out of control government, the wealthy puppetmasters of the world would have no interest in a toothless small government, as it could not advance agendas. And again, Dodd-Frank is proof positive that “bankers” do not run this country.

  11. David A says:

    Gator, please give a brief description of Dodd-Frank, and how it has slowed or stopped over leveraging of investments and restored Glass /Stiegel. I really do not know what Dodd-Frank did.

    • gator69 says:

      I simply do not have the time to tell you everyting that Dodd-frank has done, is doing, and will continue to do. If you have not studied the bill, you absolutely should as it is one of the most damaging legislations to ever hit the US economy.

      Briefly, Dodd-Frank cut my old departments profits by more than half, and that was day one. It also set up the CFPB, a panel with absolutely zero oversight that continues to write new regulations to this day, five years later. The CFPB was supposed to help consumers, but instead it has made things worse, especially for low income households.

      I am preparing my house for company and do not have time to go into detail, but I will say that Dodd-Frank did for our economy what Obamacare did for healthcare. The best thing we could do for our economy today would be to repeal Dodd-Frank.

  12. ren says:

    A big drop in temperatures over the Antarctic.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    gator69 says: “Dodd-Frank is proof positive that banks do not run the world, or this country.”

    I am sorry Gator, but all Dodd-Frank proves is that politicians are very very good at Smoke and Mirrors.

    Let me see if I can put my thoughts on this down. First a bit of background.

    About 10 years ago a guy by the pen name of Sancho Jones mentioned that his brother who worked for the EPA was told to leave the big boy’s alone and go after the Mom & Pop wildcat oil drilling companies.

    An illustration of that type of use of laws and regulations can be seen in Shielding the Giant – USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy

    John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA

    The USDA Allowed ConAgra to poison Americans with tainted meat despite Montana meat processor, John Munsell, trying to tell USDA leadership where the tainted meat was coming. Instead of following up on a very straight forward line of evidence, the USDA drove John out of business. Not on the internet (private E-mail to me) – John had a New York magazine interview him for three days. The editor approved the article but it was stomped on and buried by the owners of the magazine. As a result we got the Food Safety Modernization Act that will eventually drive all independent farmers out of business.

    A good explanation of how the law making process actually works: America’s Ruling Class

    Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, far from setting univocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (at this writing) tilting the field exquisitely toward some and away from others. Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don’t have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower….

    Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the [Ruling] class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment’s parts….

    THIS is the reason the Dodd-Frank Act had to be written and passed July 21, 2010 just before elections. Too many people had seen the wizard of OZ behind the curtain and it was necessary to give the APPEARANCE of not being puppets of the International Banksters. Heck I had a long discussion about the foreclosure mess with a bunch of farmers in the boonies at a feed store, I doubt I could ever find again. Those people had a lot of knowledge and more important they were P.Oed. Even with the passage of that act the Tea Party had the interest of one third of the US voters. April 2010 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama.

    More important, the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit had bombed and it was very very important that America’s Ruling Class stay in control. Besides they really don’t give a hoot about what laws are now written in the USA since a World Government is the true goal.

    in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

    When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Another very important point on the Dodd-Frank Act . After the Shearing of the Sheeple called the Great Depression, the Glass–Steagall Act of 1932 was passed.

      Did that law, put in place to ‘prevent another Great Depression’ save us from the 2008 Shearing of the Sheeple? HECK NO!

      The five new banking laws Clinton signed that set up the Foreclosure Fiasco.
      The McFadden Act of 1927 or Amendment to the National Banking Laws and the Federal Reserve Act (P.L. 69-639, 44 STAT. 1224): Prohibited interstate banking.

      Law: Negating above:
      Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994
      (P.L. 103-328, 108 STAT. 2338).
      Permits bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state one year Beginning June 1, 1997, allows interstate mergers.

      The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162): Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.

      Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133): Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.

      Law: Negating both of the above laws:
      Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
      (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338)
      Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Modifies portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to allow affiliations between banks and insurance underwriters. Law creates a new financial holding company authorized to engage in: underwriting and selling insurance and securities, conducting both commercial and merchant banking, investing in and developing real estate and other “complimentary activities.”

      Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-242, 105 STAT. 2236).
      Also known as FDICIA. FDICIA [b]greatly increased the powers and authority of the FDIC. Major provisions recapitalized the Bank Insurance Fund and [b]allowed the FDIC to strengthen the fund by borrowing from the Treasury.

      Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550, 106 STAT. 3672).

      RTC Completion Act[/b] (P.L. 103-204, 107 STAT. 2369):
      implement provisions designed to improve the agency’s record in providing business opportunities to minorities and women.. Expands the existing affordable housing programs of the RTC and the FDIC by broadening the potential affordable housing stock of the two agencies.
      Increases the statute of limitations on RTC civil lawsuits. In cases in which the statute of limitations has expired, claims can be revived for fraud and intentional misconduct resulting in unjust enrichment or substantial loss to the thrift.
      The Source:

      • gator69 says:

        The topic is Dodd-Frank.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, the Dodd-Frank Act can be just as easily repealed (or modified) as Glass-Steagall Act was when the International Banksters want to set-up another Sheeple Shearing. It doesn’t matter what the law was that was passed in the glaring spotlight of public disapproval. THAT was the point. These people are very long range planners and they sacrificed a bit in 2010 to GUARANTEE they remained in control of the democrats and RINOs with no troublesome third party gumming up the works. They especially needed Obama to stay relatively popular since he has zero problem selling the USA out to the UN and destroying US sovereignty.

          Not that the big banks sacrificed all that much.

          AIG reports that between September 16, 2008, and the end of the year it paid out $22.4 billion to CDS counterparties including Merrill Lynch ($1.8 billion), Deutsche Bank ($2.6 billion), Goldman Sachs ($2.5 billion) and Societe Generale ($4.1 billion).

          So the bankers got the foreclosed house AND the foreclosure insurance payment from AIG (Thanks to money supplied by the US tax payer) On top of that the FED got a controlling rope on all the other bankers in the USA via the forced ‘bailout’ moneys.

          Another key point is WHERE some of those taxpayer dollars actually went. If you recall the Federal Reserve fought tooth and nail including making threats when Dr Ron Paul tried to get a law passed to track the funds. (Sorry no link just foggy memory from half a decade ago.)

          Judicial Watch Sues Federal Reserve for Records Detailing U.S. Taxpayer Bailout of European Banks

          … On December 14, 2011, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly told Republican Senators that he did not have the intention or authority to use taxpayer dollars to bail out troubled European banks, but a “currency swap” program extended by the Fed on November 30, 2011, led to nearly $95 billion in loans to the European Central Bank in December 2011 alone. (Judicial Watch v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Federal Open Market Committee (No. 1:12-cv-01114))

          Under what is known as a “temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangement,” the Fed lends U.S. dollars to foreign central banks which then auction these dollars off to their local banks. The Fed’s stated intent for initiating the program was to ease lending for European Banks during the financial crisis. The Fed initiated the program in December 2007 and allowed it to expire in February 2010. In May 2010, the Fed rebooted the program and on November 30, 2011, extended it through February 1, 2013. This extension prompted a sharp increase from $400 million to $95 billion in loans in December 2011….
          As reported by Bloomberg:

          For all the transparency forced on the Federal Reserve by Congress and the courts, one of the central bank’s emergency-lending programs remains so secretive that names of borrowers may be hidden from the Fed itself. As part of a currency-swap plan active from 2007 to 2010 and revived to fight the European debt crisis, the Fed lends dollars to other central banks, which auction them to local commercial banks…While the transactions with other central banks are all disclosed, the Fed doesn’t track where the dollars ultimately end up, and European officials don’t share borrowers’ identities outside the continent.

          The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports that, as of March 31, the European Central Bank had $33 billion in outstanding swaps. The secrecy of these arrangements has been criticized by Gerald O’Driscoll, a former vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, as “bailing out European banks and, indirectly, spendthrift European governments. It is difficult to count the number of things wrong with this arrangement.”….

          “Chairman Bernanke can dress it up in whatever language he chooses, but these ‘currency swaps’ are nothing more than massive bailouts of European banks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That we have to sue to get basic information about this massive bailout speaks volumes about the dubious nature of this under the radar program.”

          Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion

          Also at this point the International bankers have already sheared the American sheep AND the plans are in place to THIS TIME get the world government they want. Actually the 2008 financial crisis was part of the plan to force individual countries into accepting a world government. CAGW was just for the Great Unwashed. A financial rope is what matters to a country’s business leaders. Western society is now built on debt. Thanks to the Reagan era Leveraged Buyouts the debt free corporations like Gillette were targeted and either torn apart and the assets sold or loaded with debt.

          Earlier this year, Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and tireless crusader on the cause of stopping the United Nations’ march to making global warming goals the law of the world, had this to say about the last remaining level-headed world leader when it comes to the whole global warming/climate change swindle.

          “First of all, you all need to guard tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN, will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected prime minister from office before the end of his term, and in particular before December 11 2015. So they can get a 100% wall to wall Marxist agreement, they do not want any standouts. And the most likely standout at the moment is Australia, god bless it.”

          At any rate, Lord Monckton called this one right. God help us.

          Lord Monckton also said Canada would oust their conservative prime minister and put in a Pro-CAGW type.

          BTW the US Constitutional requirement of approval by Congress for a treaty means diddly on the International scene.

          Gator, I really really hope you are correct and a power grab by the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers and Morgans and the EU Royals is not in the cards but I see nothing that shows that I am incorrect.

        • gator69 says:

          And there is the problem, you conflate “bankers” with the likes of the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers and Morgans and the EU Royals.

          They are obsessed and powerful busybodies, and not “bankers”. Language Gail, it’s how they get you.

    • gator69 says:

      Sorry Gail, if banks ran the country, Dodd-Frank would never have seen the light of day. You cannot have it both ways.

  14. Gail Combs says:

    And a last point on the Dodd-Frank Act.

    investopedia has a synopsis of the Dodd-Frank Act. Of interest is the links within the page and at the bottom of the page. If you follow those links you get:

    DEFINITION of ‘Systemically Important Financial Institution – SIFI’
    Any firm as designated by the U.S. Federal Reserve, whose collapse would pose a serious risk to the economy…

    DEFINITION of ‘Financial Stability Oversight Council’

    A committee led by the U.S. Treasury Secretary that is charged with monitoring the financial system, including identifying potential threats to the country’s financial stability. The Financial Stability Oversight Council is composed of 10 voting and five non-voting members. The voting members include Treasury officials, Federal Reserve Board members and insurance experts.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by the Dodd-Wall Street Reform and Protection Consumer Act of 2010. The CFPB is headed by a chief who is appointed by the President for a five-year term. The bureau is also assisted by a Consumer Advisory Council, composed of at least six members who are recommended by regional Federal Reserve presidents.

    Meet the new boss same as the old boss….

    • gator69 says:

      The Federal Reserve is not a “bank”. You cannot open a checking account or get a loan from the Fed.

      If banks ran the country, Dodd-Frank would never have seen the light of day.

  15. Gail Combs says:

    The Federal Reserve is a Central Bank and control shifted from the government TO THE BANKERS after they instigated “the Accord”

    WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman 1964

    Click to access patman-primer-on-money.pdf

    Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.” It would no longer ” peg Government bond prices. It would raise or lower interest rates as it might see fit, as a means of trying to prevent inflation or deflation. These are understandings which have been grafted onto the accord over the years. Certainly, no such understandings were universal at the time the accord was signed. ….

    Do bankers believe that they own the Federal Reserve banks.
    Yes. — 100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks. Also after instigating “the Accord” It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do”….Therefore the Federal Reserve is not answerable to the President or Congress or the electorate, nor even to a government audit or even Congressional funding!

    The original act required that the banks invest 6 percent of their capital stock in the Federal Reserve banks.

    Why was the Federal Reserve Act written to require member banks to invest in the so-called stock of the Federal Reserve banks? The framers of the Federal Reserve Act gave many reasons, but the main, reason was this: it was expected that the Federal Reserve would issue money, not mainly against Government securities as is now the practice, but against commercial and industrial loan paper-“eligible paper” as the reader knows.
    It was in view of these considerations that Congress, in framing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, required member banks of the Federal Reserve System to put a certain percentage of their capital into the .’stock” of the Federal Reserve banks; this “stock” was a safeguard against a misuse of the Government’s credit which was being delegated to these banks. The 1013 act placed on the member banks, furthermore, a “double liability” for their “stock” in the Federal Reserve banks. In other words, if a Federal Reserve bank failed, the member banks would lose not only their invested capital, but an equal amount of capital which they would also forfeit. [pg 79]

    The make-up of the Federal Reserve Directors changed in favor of the bankers
    The Federal Open Market Committee.
    There are 19 participants in this powerful body, 7 appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Once appointed, however, a man serves for a period of 14 years, and cannot be removed by the President or by any other official body, except for cause. The other 12 men in this select group are elected to their places through the votes of private commercial bankers. there are 12 voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee. The voting members consist of 7 members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, plus some 5 of the 12 Federal Reserve bank residents. [pg 65]

    Because of this, the balance of power over the money supply lay securely, it was thought, with the public side of the System through authority of the Board of Governors. But when the move toward the alternative open-market technique of control was given legislative blessing by Congress in 1933 and 1935 and a full-fledged central bank thereby created the balance shifted radically toward the private, commercial banking side of the System. [pg 72]

    “ownership” of the Fed Reserve: Confusion due to stock and elected board members:
    The position of the Federal Reserve officials thus seems to be clear :
    The Federal Reserve banks are not owned by the commercial banks. The viewpoint of the individuals quoted above has also been borne out by the presidents of the Federal Reserve banks in hearings before the House Banking and Currency Committee. However, officials of the Federal Reserve banks are sometimes inclined to take the opposite position. [pg 78]

    • gator69 says:

      Do bankers believe that they own the Federal Reserve banks.
      Yes. — 100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks.


      That is the most ridiculous statement I have seen outside of climate science in a very long time!

      We have ZERO CONTROL over the Fed, and we are completely at its mercy.

      Gail, they call it a “bank”, but it is not a “bank”, and is not controlled by “banks” or “bankers”. I know, because I am a banker and I have seen what the Fed does to banks.

      The Fed is a bank the same way that the IPCC is a scientific organization.

  16. Gail Combs says:

    gator69 says: “And there is the problem, you conflate “bankers” with the likes of the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers and Morgans and the EU Royals.

    They are obsessed and powerful busybodies, and not “bankers”. Language Gail, it’s how they get you.”

    OK Gator, we are on the same page. And I agree, “Language is how they get you.”

    The change in definition of capitalism is one that really frosts my tail. Now it just means the Fascist form of Socialism and real capitalism is a completely unknown concept to most people.

    Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned with a separation of the state and economics. [stolen from Ayn Rand] It is a system that allows the individual to invest his wealth and labor to create more wealth. Today in the USA the entrepreneur is a slowly vanishing breed thanks to the rapidly increasing red tape, laws, taxes and heavy fines that make trying to do business like mud wrestling a pig (The US government being the pig.)

    One study I read showed many small businesses closed, not because they were going bankrupt but because the owners decide the return was just not worth the hassle and that was over a decade ago.

    According to Dun & Bradstreet reports, “Businesses with fewer than 20 employees have only a 37% chance of surviving four years (of business) and only a 9% chance of surviving 10 years.” Restaurants only have a 20% chance of surviving 2 years. Of these failed business, only 10% of them close involuntarily due to bankruptcy and the remaining 90% close because the business was not successful, did not provide the level of income desired or was too much work for their efforts.

    About half of new employer firms survive at least four years (an estimated one-third of nonemployer firms survive this period), and of the firms that closed, owners of about a third felt the firm was successful at closure.

    Closure rates among the variables reveal that employers and firms with starting capital greater than $50,000 have low closure rates, and young owners and firms with no starting capital have high closure rates…

    [In the USA in 2003] Small firms with less than 500 employees represent 99.7 percent of the 23.7 million businesses.

  17. Gail Combs says:

    Oh and Turnbull, now Prime Minister, was Chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And still has very close links to them…

      That’s why he will probably try to sign us up to an ETS or something similar.

      • Andy Oz says:

        That’s exactly why he was installed. A year out from an election, and Canning by-election about to be a thrashing for ALP & Greens. Only one reason. Paris2015.
        What the UN demands, (read World Bank, IMF & CFR) the UN gets. Goldman Sachs is just the conduit. Australian media, particularly “theirABC”, were the useful idiots.

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