I’m wondering if any of the sheep out there are digging into the guts of this article and exposing the stupidity of it, instead of just accepting the media’s incessant Chicken Little routine. When I first saw this article, I said, “really?” Then as I began to read it, I realized it was more of the same drivel we’ve been seeing for years on "manmade" climate change, though the hysteria level is definitely being stretched to new heights.
First of all, melting ice? I’ve covered that subject here on quite a few occasions.
Why are the histrionics of alarmists reaching epic proportions? Because they’re losing the programming battle. The battle to indoctrinate the masses into believing there’s manmade global warming is becoming Custer’s fiasco at Little Big Horn, and deniers like me are the stubborn Native Americans. So the claims become more and more shrill and preposterous as time goes by. Also, look at where this newspaper is published; it’s in the U.K., and a recent poll showed just what Britons are thinking about the scam of global warming. So, the headline is designed to jolt us deniers and embolden the alarmists into screaming, “See, I told you so.” But let’s go further and fight hyperbole with cold logic.
Never mind the wheezing headline, which is so very misleading. Check the VERY FIRST SENTENCE in the article. Ice is melting at the North Pole for “THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY?” Really? I wonder if any layman out there can find the huge problem with this first claim before I even pour out my thoughts. If one examines the article and reads my past posts here on melting ice then one can see some of the issues, and you needn’t be a climatologist or scientist to understand. Any time a ridiculous claim like this is made by someone, one should always first ask, “What is the baseline?” By that I mean that there must be some standard or starting point by which they’re making a comparison. Statistically, there should be an average or mean level of ice over a given period, and the longer the period used for the baseline, the more accurate the assertion will be once a comparison is made. They’ve been visually “measuring” the ice at the poles since we’ve had satellites, which, as you know, have been in stationary orbit above the poles since Lucy first learned to walk upright (yes, mockery definitely intended). I posted already on the statistical stupidity of taking a 30-year period of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history as a baseline and making stupid climate pronouncements based on that VERY, VERY SMALL period of time. Heck, it would still be a stupid comparison if we used only the years comprising human history (from the Paleolithic – 2.5 million years ago), which is a brief moment in the Earth’s total history. Using a 30-year period as a baseline would be a statistical no-no to any real scientist or statistician, unless those professionals need to KEEP the $1.7B in federal climate research grants coming in! My assertion is that polar ice has melted and reformed at least thousands of times in the history of the Earth, and I mean FAR BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.
Next, when you picture all the ice at the North Pole melting (which is implied by this article’s headline), what do you think? They did use the word “entirely,” which I take to mean ALL OF IT. I pictured that you could swim or boat literally up to the very pole—the very top of the Earth and grin up at the North Star. Or do they just mean melting in that general vicinity? Check the graphic and notice how they say that “melting ice COULD match last year’s record.” Monkeys COULD also fly out of my butt. The word "could" in these fear-mongering articles should always set off an alarm in your brain, because it also implies that it "could not" happen. Again, review some of the failed predictions on climate change we've had recently, including the dire hurricane forecasts that have failed to transpire, even though Al Gore predicted that Hurricane Katrina was directly caused by global warming; if we're still warming...where have all the hurricanes been over the past three years? Oh, I know...cyclones and hurricanes have been hitting other continents--JUST AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE!
They let slip another fact. All the ice that they alarmingly reported in previous years as having melted REFORMED LAST YEAR DURING A RECORD-SETTING WINTER! I think the reasoning is that because it’s “new ice” it will melt faster in the summer than “old ice.” So this is another “scary” prediction on climate change, and we’ve seen a lot of those predictions over the past year—most of which turned out to be CRAP! I’m now making a prediction...many or most of these manmade climate change predictions WILL ALSO TURN OUT TO BE CRAP. Let’s see what happens to the polar ice at the end of this summer and then what happens next winter, when some climatologists say the Earth will be very cold due to the masking of global warming by La Nina (another farcical assertion). Remember Galileo's opponents! They devised elaborate models to explain the movements of the heavens to counter the "denier's" theory that the Sun was the center of the known universe...not the Earth. Was the maverick correct, or was the consensus?
So, let’s say that the ice is going to melt all the way up to the North Pole at 90 degrees North latitude. Can we really say it’s the FIRST TIME EVER IN HUMAN HISTORY or that it’s even a bad thing if it does happen? Remember the Little Climate Optimum—an inconvenient truth that alarmists want you to forget. Our vast history is littered with climate changes and shifts, and all of them came BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole | Independent
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.
Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during the summer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeks shows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when there was an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.
