There goes another Warmist, eco-zealot narrative. It seems the ice isn’t vanishing, after all.
One of the reasons (1) I’ve been so skeptical over the years regarding the theory of catastrophic man-caused global warming (2) is that, to date, not a single one of its apologists’ predictions have come true. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not the tropospheric hot spot, not the frequency of storms (that was later changed to “storm intensity” when they failed to appear on schedule), not snow-less winters… It goes on and on.
Now we have another one.
For years, climate cultists up to and including Al Gore himself have claimed that global warming would lead to the disappearance of Arctic ice, with, of course disastrous and DOOM!!! for us all. This, in spite of there being less ice in the Arctic 6,000-7,000 years ago (3), when we supposedly lived in a climatic golden age.
Guess what? They’re wrong again:
“Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.
Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.
Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.
As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.
Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.“
Real science is kept accountable through reproducibility and verification by experiment. Shouldn’t the climate change cult be held to the same standards, and shouldn’t the failure of any of their models to accurately predict the future (let alone model the past) be held against them?
I must hate the Earth, or something.
via Jeff Jacoby
(1) Aside from bad science, corruption, and a misanthropic religious fervor…
(2) Later changed for marketing reasons to “climate change” when the world failed to warm as predicted…
(3) And yet the polar bears seemed to do just fine. It’s as animals can adapt. Weird.
But, wait. I thought all the polar ice was vanishing because of warming that hasn’t been happening for 18 years — and counting. I’m so confused! Enlighten me, Al Gore!
From YORK UNIVERSITY and the “paging Dr. Peter Wadhams” department…
Northwest passage routes. Stock Image: Wikipedia TORONTO, September 29, 2015 – Despite climate change, sea ice in the (NWP) remains too thick and treacherous for it to be a regular commercial Arctic shipping route for many decades, according to new research out of York University.
Prior to this research, there was little information about the thickness of sea ice in the NWP, which meanders through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Yet, next to ice coverage and type, sea ice thickness plays the most important role in assessing shipping hazards and predicting ice break-up.
“While everyone only looks at ice extent or area, because it is so easy to do with satellites, we study ice thickness, which is important to assess overall changes of ice volume, and helps to understand why and where the ice is most vulnerable to summer melt,”…
View original post 611 more words
Yet another “inconvenient truth” for climate alarmists, in which Nature refuses to play along with their beloved computer models. In Warmist theology, the polar ice cap was supposed to vanish (ignore the fact that’s happened several times before). Yet here it is, growing. I wonder if this is related to the discovery of newborn glaciers in Scotland?
The headline is a quote by Dr. Judith Curry from a David Rose article in the Sunday Mail: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now.
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since…
View original post 399 more words
America wants Canada to keep at least some forces in Afghanistan. Canada, after all, makes an important contribution to the war effort there, and Prime Minister Harper has been under pressure to withdraw. So, in the era of Smart Power(tm), how does Secretary of State Clinton go about doing this?
By first insulting the Canadians at a meeting hosted by Canada:
Clinton rebukes Canada at Arctic meeting
It was supposed to be a meeting of polar pals. But a high-level session on the vast opportunities opening up in the Arctic got off to a chilly start Monday, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Canada for leaving several players off the guest list.
The Canadian government invited foreign ministers from the other four countries with Arctic coastlines — Russia, Norway, Denmark and the United States — to hold talks on developing the region, which is being transformed by climate change.
Within a few years, the Arctic’s ice blanket could melt for at least a few months a year, opening up access to huge oil and gas reserves, as well as a new shipping lane. Under a United Nations treaty, the Arctic countries can claim ownership of natural resources up to 200 miles off their coasts.
Clinton noted that the three other nations in the Arctic region — Sweden, Finland and Iceland — had complained they were not included in the meeting. She said she also was contacted by representatives of indigenous groups in the area that had been left off the list.
“Significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region,” Clinton said, according to a prepared copy of her remarks to the meeting, which was closed to press. “And I hope the Arctic will always showcase our ability to work together, not create new divisions.”
You would think the Secretary of State of the United States would understand the basics of diplomacy, including the idea that issues between two nations rarely stand in isolation and that the status of one may affect the other. Or how about common courtesy, such as not chastising a valued ally in public over minor protocol issues?
Of course, this boorish behavior rests on one of the pillars of Obama Doctrine, that the United States has no real friends or enemies, and that conflict is reduced when we are an impartial arbiter between all. As Seth Cropsey described it in his article “Remedial Diplomacy,”
Barack Obama’s theory is that partisanship is the source of conflict. There should be no more red states or blue states. Every political choice is a false choice, an example of old thinking. Similarly on the international stage. If the United States distanced itself from its allies and drew closer to its adversaries, conflict would be reduced. The United States could then serve as the international mediator rather than as the guarantor of global order and an agent of democratic political change.
But, the real world doesn’t operate that way. Cozening up to North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela, while backhanding Great Britain, Israel, Canada, Poland, and the Czech Republic will only signal to our allies that we’re unreliable while telling our rivals that we’re feckless.
This is what they meant by “smart power?” It’s more like a recipe for a weakened United States and, therefore, a more dangerous world.
(via Hot Air)
Poor Al Gore. It’s hard enough being the spiritual leader for thousands of drooling enviro-cultists and the front man for Green Statists worldwide, but do people also have to ruin his narrative and humiliate him with facts?
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up
There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
Ignore the inconvenient fact that, while 2007 was the minimum year so far for Arctic ice (but we only started measuring around 1979, and it’s growing again), Antarctic sea ice is growing and reaching record highs. This is yet another example of why Al Gore should not be taken seriously: he plays fast and loose with the facts, when he’s not getting them wrong altogether. For him the “truth” of global warming is a given; having to prove it is a chore, so why bother to get facts straight when we already know what needs to be done? Facts serve policy; policy is not derived from facts. We see the same intellectual and ethical inversion at work in the leaked emails and program code from the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit. And now it’s all coming out, thanks to unnamed whistle-blowers and even Mother Nature herself.
No, it isn’t easy being High Priest.
POSTSCRIPT: His Green Holiness seems to be on a roll with the mistakes.
UPDATE: Perhaps the scientist who claims Al got it wrong is himself playing fast and loose? Looks like we have two crooks caught, each pointing the finger at the other.