Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[PLC1]

So you are claiming 1 degree since 1999? That is interesting since no less "august" bodies than the national academy of sciences and the IPCC only claim .2 degrees per decade for the past 30 years or so. Who exactly is claiming 5 times the amount of warming?

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full



Of course you aren't sure. I am sure that something as "trivial" as a margin of error in a claimed temperature rise never even entered into your thought process. I am not claiming that the change is not anthropogenic. I am claiming that with a margin of error several times larger than the temperature increase being claimed, how can you be sure that there is, in fact, any temperature change at all?

If I tell you that I will give you a dollar but I might be overestimating the amount of money I can give you by as much as 4 dollars, how much money do you really expect to get from me?

If the margin of error is larger than the temperature increase being claimed, of what value, exacltly (other than political) is the point of making a claim at all?

I see.

So, the argument has shifted from global warming being accelerated by human activities, to it being real. Your contention is that the increase in average temperature is within the margin of error for measuring said increase. Is that correct?

 

[palerider]

I see.

So, the argument has shifted from global warming being accelerated by human activities, to it being real. Your contention is that the increase in average temperature is within the margin of error for measuring said increase. Is that correct?

You don't seem to be grasping anything that I am saying. It isn't a difficult argument to comprehend if you are intellectually mature enough to grasp the possiblity that you might have been hoaxed.

The so called authorities claim a temperature increase of roughly two tenths of a degree per decade for the past 30 years or so. The margin of error for the data upon which that claim is based is several times larger than the temperature increase being claimed. What exactly does that tell you about the intrinsic value of the claim itself?

Before you answer the question, first ask yourself if you are capable of intellectual integrity to any degree whatsoever.

So what does the fact that the margin of error is several times greater than the temperature increase being claimed tell you about the veracity of the claim in the first place?

 

[PLC1]

You don't seem to be grasping anything that I am saying. It isn't a difficult argument to comprehend if you are intellectually mature enough to grasp the possiblity that you might have been hoaxed.

The so called authorities claim a temperature increase of roughly two tenths of a degree per decade for the past 30 years or so. The margin of error for the data upon which that claim is based is several times larger than the temperature increase being claimed. What exactly does that tell you about the intrinsic value of the claim itself?

Before you answer the question, first ask yourself if you are capable of intellectual integrity to any degree whatsoever.

So what does the fact that the margin of error is several times greater than the temperature increase being claimed tell you about the veracity of the claim in the first place?

Regardless of your insulting innuendo, I'll try to answer your post yet again. The question was whether the discussion has shifted away from global warming being partly man made, and to it not being real at all.

Sure, I understand that you're saying that the margin of error is greater than the warming that has been claimed, and therefore, there may be no warming at all.
So, I'll answer that one, based on what you seem to be claiming.

If the measurements are wrong, then there is no global warming. The claim that the first decade of the 21st. century is the warmest on record is false, or at least irrelevant as it is within the margin of error.

Now, once again, is this really what you're claiming? The measurements that have been taken are not accurate enough to determine whether there really has been any warming over the past few decades?

 

[palerider]

Regardless of your insulting innuendo, I'll try to answer your post yet again. The question was whether the discussion has shifted away from global warming being partly man made, and to it not being real at all.

Got to hand it to you guys, you have the shuck and jive down pat. If the margin of error is several times greater than the temperature increase being claimed, then of course there is a serious question as to whether or not there is, in reality, any change at all.

Now, once again, is this really what you're claiming? The measurements that have been taken are not accurate enough to determine whether there really has been any warming over the past few decades?

The margin of error is several times greater than the temperature increase being claimed. Based on what, exactly do you believe that there has been any temperature increase.

Say you have just taken an IQ test and are told that you scored 50. Then you are told that the margin of error for the test you just took is 200 to 300 points. Do you believe that your IQ is 50 based on that test? Do you even give the score you received a second thought based on the fact that the margin of error for the test is so much larger than the measurement it just claimed to have made regarding your IQ? What do you believe about anything in which the margin of error is several times greater than the claimed measurement being made?

 

[PLC1]

Got to hand it to you guys, you have the shuck and jive down pat. If the margin of error is several times greater than the temperature increase being claimed, then of course there is a serious question as to whether or not there is, in reality, any change at all.



The margin of error is several times greater than the temperature increase being claimed. Based on what, exactly do you believe that there has been any temperature increase.

Say you have just taken an IQ test and are told that you scored 50. Then you are told that the margin of error for the test you just took is 200 to 300 points. Do you believe that your IQ is 50 based on that test? Do you even give the score you received a second thought based on the fact that the margin of error for the test is so much larger than the measurement it just claimed to have made regarding your IQ? What do you believe about anything in which the margin of error is several times greater than the claimed measurement being made?

OK, I just wanted to pin down exactly what you were claiming.

Now, if I were to take an IQ test, and get a score of 50 with a margin of error of 300, I'd naturally assume that my IQ was 350.
But, other people might decide to look at other factors to see whether the score was really off by that much.

So, perhaps other factors need to be looked at to see whether there really is any warming of the Earth, or whether the measurements are just off. What factors do you think we should look at to determine whether the Earth is actually getting warmer on average, or whether the measurements are wrong?

 

[palerider]

OK, I just wanted to pin down exactly what you were claiming.

Now, if I were to take an IQ test, and get a score of 50 with a margin of error of 300, I'd naturally assume that my IQ was 350.

Of course you would. It would make you feel good to have an IQ of 350. And that is precisely what is being done in the case of AGW. What an intellectually mature, and honest person would do is disregard the test as worthless and seek out a test with a far, far, far smaller margin of error. You and yours are making assumptions based on nothing more than your own personal interests and data handed to you by "scientists" who have been caught repeatedly serving their own personal interests.

Now, how do you believe the whole situation might look to someone who is intellectually mature enough to disregard any personal interest and look purely at the data and history of data manipulation in order to make a determination.

But, other people might decide to look at other factors to see whether the score was really off by that much.

And how might they do that if it is known that the data involving the measuring of IQ, across the board has been being tampered with for nearly 3 decades?

So, perhaps other factors need to be looked at to see whether there really is any warming of the Earth, or whether the measurements are just off. What factors do you think we should look at to determine whether the Earth is actually getting warmer on average, or whether the measurements are wrong?

What other factors might you look at? Personally, I looked at the laws of physics and applied them to the models and energy budgets which comprise the basis of AGW alarmism and found that the very laws of physics deny the possibility of a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and without that greenhouse effect, there is no AGW alarmism.

As to what factors we might look at, consider the satellite record. It doesn't show the warming that is being claimed based on the ground record. We might look at the millions of radiosondes which have been launched over the past 3 decades and have yet to find any indication of the atmospheric "hot spot" which we are told would be the single most glaring indicator of manmade global warming. We might consider the fact that satellites have proven beyond question that there is no reduction in outgoing long wave radiation from the earth even though the atmospheric CO2 has increased; when we are told that AGW is due to CO2 somehow holding in longwave radiation.

Finally we should look and wonder why warmist can not name a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and realise that without a greenhouse effect and backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism at all.

Given those factors, a rational person should question any claims of man's influence on the climate and begin to look to natural causes. The first step would be to look at paleohistory and see if what is happening today is in any way unusual. A look at paleohistory tells us that the climate today is in no way unprecedented or unusual unless you consider the fact that it is quite cold on earth today when you compare the present temperature to the long term history of the earth.

Next, a look at natural variation within the climate system. Again, a hard look tells us that nothing that is happening within the climate today even approaches the outermost boundries of natural variation. Our present climate is so far within the boundries of natural variation that, given the observations above, a rational person could only come to the conclusion that AGW alarmism is a political or religious movement not based on anything that can be found in reality.

What conclusion have you reached and upon what observable, repeatable, hard cold scientific fact do you rest those conclusions upon?

 

[PLC1]

Of course you would. It would make you feel good to have an IQ of 350. And that is precisely what is being done in the case of AGW. What an intellectually mature, and honest person would do is disregard the test as worthless and seek out a test with a far, far, far smaller margin of error. You and yours are making assumptions based on nothing more than your own personal interests and data handed to you by "scientists" who have been caught repeatedly serving their own personal interests.

Now, how do you believe the whole situation might look to someone who is intellectually mature enough to disregard any personal interest and look purely at the data and history of data manipulation in order to make a determination.



And how might they do that if it is known that the data involving the measuring of IQ, across the board has been being tampered with for nearly 3 decades?



What other factors might you look at? Personally, I looked at the laws of physics and applied them to the models and energy budgets which comprise the basis of AGW alarmism and found that the very laws of physics deny the possibility of a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and without that greenhouse effect, there is no AGW alarmism.

As to what factors we might look at, consider the satellite record. It doesn't show the warming that is being claimed based on the ground record. We might look at the millions of radiosondes which have been launched over the past 3 decades and have yet to find any indication of the atmospheric "hot spot" which we are told would be the single most glaring indicator of manmade global warming. We might consider the fact that satellites have proven beyond question that there is no reduction in outgoing long wave radiation from the earth even though the atmospheric CO2 has increased; when we are told that AGW is due to CO2 somehow holding in longwave radiation.

Finally we should look and wonder why warmist can not name a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and realise that without a greenhouse effect and backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism at all.

Given those factors, a rational person should question any claims of man's influence on the climate and begin to look to natural causes. The first step would be to look at paleohistory and see if what is happening today is in any way unusual. A look at paleohistory tells us that the climate today is in no way unprecedented or unusual unless you consider the fact that it is quite cold on earth today when you compare the present temperature to the long term history of the earth.

Next, a look at natural variation within the climate system. Again, a hard look tells us that nothing that is happening within the climate today even approaches the outermost boundries of natural variation. Our present climate is so far within the boundries of natural variation that, given the observations above, a rational person could only come to the conclusion that AGW alarmism is a political or religious movement not based on anything that can be found in reality.

What conclusion have you reached and upon what observable, repeatable, hard cold scientific fact do you rest those conclusions upon?

I asked you first, and then you went off on the causes of global warming you say doesn't exist. What observable events support the conclusion that there has or has not been an increase in the average temperature of the Earth over the past few few decades? Surely, there must be some effect if the measurements you mention are real, and not just a result of the margin of error.

Before you can establish a cause and a result, first we must decide whether the phenomenon is real, or just the result of inaccurate measurement, so talking about a cause and then "alarmism" about the effect just is detracting from the discussion. There are several different positions taken by people trying to refute a scientific theory, so we need to pin down just which one we're talking about.

So, causes aside, politics aside, are there any events that can be attributed to an increase in the average temperature of the Earth?

 

[palerider]

There are several different positions taken by people trying to refute a scientific theory, so we need to pin down just which one we're talking about.

AGW is not a scientific theory. AGW is a pretty poor hypothesis. I believe I already gave you a definition of the word theory, and at present, climate alarmism is not based on anything that could be construed as a theory.

So, causes aside, politics aside, are there any events that can be attributed to an increase in the average temperature of the Earth?

Well, there is the fact that the earth has been in the process of coming out of an ice age for the past 14,000 years. The general trend for that 14,000 year period has been warming with periods of cooling. The ice has melted back almost 2000 miles and sea level has risen somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 to 500 feet. The question is not whether the climate is changing, but whether or not the blame can be laid on man. Right now, there is no real evidence of warming in the past decade while atmospheric CO2 (the claimed driver of warming) has been steadily increasing.

Upon what do you base your alarmist position?

 

[PLC1]

AGW is not a scientific theory. AGW is a pretty poor hypothesis. I believe I already gave you a definition of the word theory, and at present, climate alarmism is not based on anything that could be construed as a theory.



Well, there is the fact that the earth has been in the process of coming out of an ice age for the past 14,000 years. The general trend for that 14,000 year period has been warming with periods of cooling. The ice has melted back almost 2000 miles and sea level has risen somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 to 500 feet. The question is not whether the climate is changing, but whether or not the blame can be laid on man. Right now, there is no real evidence of warming in the past decade while atmospheric CO2 (the claimed driver of warming) has been steadily increasing.

Upon what do you base your alarmist position?

So, we've put the question you raised to rest. The Earth is warming, then, and the observed increase in temperature is not just a result of inaccuracy.
If you believe that the Earth is warming, and has been for thousands of years, I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of margin of error, but whatever. As I've said, the premise keeps shifting from

1. There is no global warming,
2. There is global warming, but it's all natural,
3. Humans do contribute to the phenomenon, but it won't be a disaster
4. Humans do contribute to the phenomenon, but we can't reverse it anyway.

Now, I've argued that #1 and #2 are both true, based on the findings of every scientific organization on Earth.

I've never argued #3, the alarmist position.
I've never supported #4, the "we must pass carbon credits and other legislation to counter global warming" position.

Since you've now admitted that #1 is real, at least you seem to be admitting that for now, the only one left in dispute is #2.

So, what is the evidence for/against that, other than the findings of the scientific community?

 

[palerider]

So, we've put the question you raised to rest. The Earth is warming, then, and the observed increase in temperature is not just a result of inaccuracy.

No, the question has not been put to rest. Your thinking is very shallow. The general trend for the past 14k years has been warming but there have been long periods of cooling within that time frame. That is the nature of interglacial periods. There is little, if any evidence of warming in the past decade or so while the claimed driver of manmade climate change has been increasing as steadily as ever.

If you believe that the Earth is warming, and has been for thousands of years, I'm not sure why you brought up the idea of margin of error, but whatever. As I've said, the premise keeps shifting from

Unlike with you and yours, it isn't a matter of what I believe. It is a matter of observed and empirical fact. The earth has been warming for a very long time but long periods of cooling have happened within that period. At present, we don't know whether it is warming or cooling because our temperature records have a far greater margin of error than any claimed increase in warming or decrease due to cooling. We simply don't know and that being the case, can not lay the unknown direction of climate change on anything other than natural variation. Any signal that you claim from man is simply not detectable and therefore negligable if it exists.

Suggestions of political action based on the known facts are driven by personal political goals and not any knowledge of what the climate is doing or why it may be doing it.

1. There is no global warming,

There is evidence of warming and evidence of cooling. What there isn't is a temperature record that has a small enough margin of error to know which is going on now.

2. There is global warming, but it's all natural,

Since nothing that is happening within the climate at present, or within the past 300 years (rough beginning of the industrial revolution) is outside of, or even close to the boundries of natural variability, there is no valid reason to think that any climate change that is happening is anything other than natural.

3. Humans do contribute to the phenomenon, but it won't be a disaster

Since nothing is outside of natural variability, what reason would there be to think that humans are causing the climate to change. When we make changes to our environment, we don't just leave fingerprints, we leave tractor tracks. If we were changing the climate, it would be evidenced by changes that would be outside of natural variability.

4. Humans do contribute to the phenomenon, but we can't reverse it anyway.

Again, what evidence is there for human causes?

Now, I've argued that #1 and #2 are both true, based on the findings of every scientific organization on Earth.

No, you have not established that either one or two are true. The margin of error in our temperature estimates is to gross to know whether or not warming or cooling is happening. Claims of scientific organizations mean nothing if their data is not precise enough to support such claims. When scientific organizations make claims based on poor data, both the integrity, and motive of the organization comes into question.

I've never argued #3, the alarmist position.

Number 3 does not reflect the alarmist position. The alarmist position is that man is causing the phenomenon and it will be a catastrophy and draconian changes must be made in the way we live our lives.

I've never supported #4, the "we must pass carbon credits and other legislation to counter global warming" position.

There is no evidence to support number 4. In fact, there is no evidence to support any of them. The margin of error upon which any of the above claims may be made is to gross to make any such claims.

Since you've now admitted that #1 is real, at least you seem to be admitting that for now, the only one left in dispute is #2.

You really aren't good at reading for comprehension are you? I never said that there is warming. I said that the general trend for the past 14k years has been warming but there have been long periods of cooling within that time frame as well. What I have said is that our temperature record is not good enough to make any claim of change in one directon or another.

So, what is the evidence for/against that, other than the findings of the scientific community?

Hard reality tells us that the models used by the "scientific" community, and the findings of the "scientific" community are not supported by the laws of physics. Physics predicts, and observation tells us that the predictions made by the "scientific" community based on their models and findings are not worth the effort it has taken to make the statements.

What I want to know is upon what basis does AGW alarmism exist? Can you name a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by AGW alarmists? Can you name a physical law that supports any of the claims or predictions being made?

 

[PLC1]

No, the question has not been put to rest. Your thinking is very shallow. The general trend for the past 14k years has been warming but there have been long periods of cooling within that time frame. That is the nature of interglacial periods. There is little, if any evidence of warming in the past decade or so while the claimed driver of manmade climate change has been increasing as steadily as ever.

Oh. So, we're back to #1 again?
It might help if you would number your arguments, so I know what your current position might be.

Unlike with you and yours, it isn't a matter of what I believe. It is a matter of observed and empirical fact. The earth has been warming for a very long time but long periods of cooling have happened within that period. At present, we don't know whether it is warming or cooling because our temperature records have a far greater margin of error than any claimed increase in warming or decrease due to cooling. We simply don't know and that being the case, can not lay the unknown direction of climate change on anything other than natural variation. Any signal that you claim from man is simply not detectable and therefore negligable if it exists.

OK, then, let's see what sorts of observations support the idea that the Earth is in a cooling cycle currently. What do you think they might be?

Me and mine? My family isn't in this debate at all. You're really only discussing this with me, unless some other member of HOP wants to jump in.

Suggestions of political action based on the known facts are driven by personal political goals and not any knowledge of what the climate is doing or why it may be doing it.

On that one, we agree. See argument #4.

There is evidence of warming and evidence of cooling. What there isn't is a temperature record that has a small enough margin of error to know which is going on now.

So you keep saying. So, now we don't know whether the Earth is warming or cooling currently? Is that your contention?

Since nothing that is happening within the climate at present, or within the past 300 years (rough beginning of the industrial revolution) is outside of, or even close to the boundries of natural variability, there is no valid reason to think that any climate change that is happening is anything other than natural.



Since nothing is outside of natural variability, what reason would there be to think that humans are causing the climate to change. When we make changes to our environment, we don't just leave fingerprints, we leave tractor tracks. If we were changing the climate, it would be evidenced by changes that would be outside of natural variability.



Again, what evidence is there for human causes?

Now we've shifted to #2. It would be less confusing if we were to stick to just one issue.

No, you have not established that either one or two are true. The margin of error in our temperature estimates is to gross to know whether or not warming or cooling is happening. Claims of scientific organizations mean nothing if their data is not precise enough to support such claims. When scientific organizations make claims based on poor data, both the integrity, and motive of the organization comes into question.

OK, here I thought we were in agreement on #1. Apparently, this is not the case. So, let's discuss #1. What evidence is there that the Earth is/ is not warming currently?

Number 3 does not reflect the alarmist position. The alarmist position is that man is causing the phenomenon and it will be a catastrophy and draconian changes must be made in the way we live our lives.

Which is exactly what I said: The "alarmist" position is that AGW will be a catastrophe. I think perhaps we agree on that one: There is no proof that it will.

here is no evidence to support number 4. In fact, there is no evidence to support any of them. The margin of error upon which any of the above claims may be made is to gross to make any such claims.

No, there is no evidence to support #4, or #3, so let's pick either #1 or #2 and quit shifting from one to the other. It would be much more more logical to do so.

You really aren't good at reading for comprehension are you?

I'm very good at reading for comprehension. If I've misunderstood one of your many different positions, look within for the reason.

I never said that there is warming. I said that the general trend for the past 14k years has been warming but there have been long periods of cooling within that time frame as well. What I have said is that our temperature record is not good enough to make any claim of change in one directon or another.

OK, so we're back to #1, as I said above.

Hard reality tells us that the models used by the "scientific" community, and the findings of the "scientific" community are not supported by the laws of physics. Physics predicts, and observation tells us that the predictions made by the "scientific" community based on their models and findings are not worth the effort it has taken to make the statements.

Good. So, now you want to discuss the science behind the determination of position #1, correct?

What I want to know is upon what basis does AGW alarmism exist?

Position #3. I've never supported that one. You'll have to ask someone else.

Can you name a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by AGW alarmists? Can you name a physical law that supports any of the claims or predictions being made?

The greenhouse effect is claimed not only by the adherents of position #3, but by the supporters of #2 as well.

I think we need to establish position #1 first, then go to #2. If there is no increase in temperature, why would we talk about the causes?

So, if we're going to discuss position #1, I think we need to look at evidence that the Earth is warming/cooling currently.

Things like:

The increase or decrease in the extent of Arctic ice.
The increase or decrease in the extent of alpine glaciers.
The increase or decrease in extremes of weather.
The growth/shrinkage of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Please feel free to add to that list. All of the above go to position #1, is the Earth currently cooling, or is it warming?

 

[dogtowner]

So, if we're going to discuss position #1, I think we need to look at evidence that the Earth is warming/cooling currently.

Things like:

The increase or decrease in the extent of Arctic ice.
The increase or decrease in the extent of alpine glaciers.
The increase or decrease in extremes of weather.
The growth/shrinkage of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Please feel free to add to that list. All of the above go to position #1, is the Earth currently cooling, or is it warming?

Is the North Pole frozen or unfroen at this time ? It was not in 1958-1962.

 

[PLC1]

Is the North Pole frozen or unfroen at this time ? It was not in 1958-1962.

According to that, then, the Arctic ice has been coming and going for the past 50 + years at least. So, what's it doing now?

According to this:

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and shrinks each summer as the sun rises higher in the northern sky. Each year the Arctic sea ice reaches its annual minimum extent in September. It hit a record low in 2007.

The near-record ice-melt followed higher-than-average summer temperatures, but without the unusual weather conditions that contributed to the extreme melt of 2007. "Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were not as conducive to ice loss this year, but the melt still neared 2007 levels," said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. "This probably reflects loss of multiyear ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas as well as other factors that are making the ice more vulnerable."

Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said the continued low minimum sea ice levels fits into the large-scale decline pattern that scientists have watched unfold over the past three decades.

it has been declining, but that only goes back thirty years.

Let's see if we can find some longer term trends:

Proxy evidence suggests that the recent declines in Arctic sea ice extent and volume are unprecedented over at least the last few thousand years (Polyak et al. 2010). Historical records indicate that the seasonal ice zone, an area of northern seas that is ice covered in winter but not in late summer, has been expanding gradually since 1870, and more rapidly in the past three decades (Kinnard et al. 2008). Reinforcing that conclusion, combined submarine and satellite measurements show that ice has been thinning over much of the Arctic Ocean since the 1950s, so the remaining cover increasingly consists of thinner seasonal ice (Kwok & Rothrock 2009).

But, that's from a blog. Perhaps we need to look at some of the references given:

The first one evidently has expired.

The second one yields:

Changes in the extent of seasonal ice were investigated using historical and satellite observations for the period 1870–2003. The seasonal ice zone (SIZ) has been gradually expanding since 1870, with a marked acceleration over the past three decades, and has migrated north to encompass all peripheral Arctic seas. The expansion of the SIZ may be increasing the salinity of the upper Arctic Ocean, consistent with recent observations. The migration of the SIZ over continental shelves may also be enhancing the formation rate and salinity of Arctic deep waters,

The third one starts as follows:

The decline of sea ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean
from ICESat (2003–2008) is placed in the context of
estimates from 42 years of submarine records (1958–2000)
described by Rothrock et al. (1999, 2008). While the earlier
1999 work provides a longer historical record of the
regional changes, the latter offers a more refined analysis,
over a sizable portion of the Arctic Ocean supported by a
much stronger and richer data set.

Arctic sea ice is declining, then, and has been for quite a while. Maybe we need to turn to other observations.

 

[dogtowner]

According to that, then, the Arctic ice has been coming and going for the past 50 + years at least. So, what's it doing now?

According to this:



it has been declining, but that only goes back thirty years.

Let's see if we can find some longer term trends:




But, that's from a blog. Perhaps we need to look at some of the references given:

The first one evidently has expired.

The second one yields:


The third one starts as follows:



Arctic sea ice is declining, then, and has been for quite a while. Maybe we need to turn to other observations.

North Pole is the middle right ? If it was melted in 62, its apparently not unusual.
Odd that Nat Geo thinks it is.

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.
"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.
Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.

too much hyperbole and outright UN-truth. We don't kn ow as much as we claim to know. Time to step back and see if there is some way to tell whats real and whats agenda.

 

[GenSeneca]

Time to step back and see if there is some way to tell whats real and whats agenda.

So long as our government is willing to throw billions of dollars at studying this subject, researchers will continue to come up with reasons why further studies are necessary... And so long as those studies can support the Progressive ideals of a totalitarian state and oppressive taxation, the politicians will gladly continue to fund "research" on the topic. Break the cycle by removing public funds from the equation and watch as the AGW theory magically disappears.