A few months ago John Roach at National Geographic wrote a global warming piece entitled “Arctic Ice at All-Time Low” which illustrates the dishonesty of the global warming crowd.
How in the world would these scientists know that the ice is at a all time low since the beginning of this planet? Answer = They don’t. They know its the lowest it’s been since they started measuring it in 1979, so a more honest headline would have been “Arctic Ice At Its Lowest Since 1979”. That doesn’t sound scary enough for them tho so they throw in the “all-time” deal and ta-da! Scary stuff.
This Arctic ice deal is a major talking point in the environazis bag of tricks when they try to prove that global warming exists. But they seem to always forget about the other pole, the Antarctic. Which is getting colder.
Some analysts have speculated that the new record could be evidence of global
warming. But is it? Even though it may sound very complicated, it turns out that
the Earth is round. At the global scale, there is not one polar region but, in
fact, two. There is also sea ice on the Southern Hemisphere. It turns out that
the Antarctic sea ice area reached 16.2 million squared kilometers in 2007 – a
new absolute record high since the measurements started in 1979
And now a team of scientists have discovered that climate cycles don’t last 28 years, no, they can last thousands:
A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in
Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary
on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen
in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trend…“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global
warming,” said Morison….The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on
more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend,
until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong
counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly,
with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this
century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate
shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
All of which should tell those honest enough to admit it that we just don’t have enough study of the environment to tell whether man-made global warming really exists, or if it is just a natural climate cycle our planet is going through. Of course admitting that would cost these “researchers” lots of money, lots of advertisements, and lots of concerts.
In short, it won’t happen.
Finally, check out this very thorough fisking of the IPCC by John Mclean:
The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organisation that thoroughly
reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear,
accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias.One only needs examine some of its procedural documents, its
reports and its dealings with reviewers of the report drafts to discover how
wrong this impression is.The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that
examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its
internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its
misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material
included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most
importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and
manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete
evidence of a significant human influence on climate.It’s time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten
reasons for doing so.
- The IPCC charter emphasises a human influence on climate, not climate in general
- Its participants are not impartial towards a possible human influence on climate
- The IPCC promotes a self-sustaining hypothesis of man-made warming
- The IPCC’s misuse of the concept of consensus
- Many IPCC report authors have vested interests
- The IPCC report authors are often also reviewers
- IPPC gives a misleading impression of the extent of review and support for its claims.
- IPCC advances a very weak argument for a significant human influence on climate
- Its primary conclusion was probably pre-determined
- Ethics and professionalism
He gives a detailed description under each reason so go check it out, well worth the read.
See author page