Comments on: 128 Years Of Global Warming Polar Melting Gloom And Doom

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:43:02 +0000

For 128 years they have cried wolf. I bet in six years the caps are just fine and in 50 will be larger.

I am not willing to spend a fortune on a 1 degree difference.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:36:18 +0000

If Bigd had a viable, non-stupid GW denier argument, I think he would have tried floating it by now.

That’s what I want for X-mas. A good solid, non-stupid GW denier argument for why the climate change science is all wrong. Or even some thing in the broadly accepted climate science is wrong.

It’s really not too much to ask.

Instead we get fake rage about Gore not quoting a scientist exactly right or some such irrelevant nonsense.

D.
—————–
“Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.”

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:06 +0000

I don’t know if you answered my request before but I’d still love to see your evidence that there was EVER until recently a commercially viable Northwest Passage. It’s not hard to imagine liberals being blind to this history since you’re just you’re making it up as you go along.

By: Blake

Blake — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:23:10 +0000

As I pointed out in past posts, there would be no rumored “Northwest Passage” for ships to shortcut to the orient, if at some time in the past, BEFORE industrialized smog and ozone depleting chemicals, there had not been a great melting of the icecaps- it boggles the mind how blind global warming adherents can be- I guess they haven’t studied, or ignore at their own peril, HISTORY.
And it would be safe to assume that there is more history that we are not now aware of (probably due to early proto- liberals, who said, “We don’t need to know THAT “.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:12:21 +0000

There is nothing in that letter that implies some alarming level of melting, just that it was a “mild winter” and could be a “very open season.” He is writing as Summer is coming on and the ice is melting quicker than usual because of that mild winter. You cannot gather anything from that letter to suggest “the caps and the ice have melted in the past and were far more depleted than they are now.”

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:29:29 +0000

Adam, the guy is talking about ship travel and the very open season indicates the ability for ship traffic to pass through the area that is usually full of ice.

This indicates that the ice was 9or did) melt just like the mariner said and just as is quoted in the sentence (and it is not taken out of context) the elipses indicate that there is more and that more shows that ship passage was possible because of the lack of ice. He talsk about another ship that should be able to get through as well and then discusses having provisions should they be there during the winter.

This indicates that the caps and the ice have melted in the past and were far more depleted than they are now. So, somtime between then and now, the ice built back up. Imagine that a CYCLE, just as people have asserted.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:09:18 +0000

Since we can’t read more than the first paragraph of all those articles it’s hard to tell what the articles are talking about, right?

I find this up to the American Thinker’s usual level of garbage. Of course they are just parroting the article other right wing blogs yet we can’t get the context of any of it?

The only article we can read in full is the very oldest quote and it is out of context:

This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting and all indications seem to point to a very open season.

Does that sound like it’s hyping anything? Not with the full quote attached and bolded.