It's not enough to bash in heads, you have to bash in minds
            

Arctic sea ice melting fast, near June all time low

The arctic sea ice is melting fast, currently the area is near that of June 2007, which was the June with the lowest sea ice area on record.

Given all of this, we should expect the deniers who were previously claiming that the sea ice had recovered (and by extension that global warming was bunk) to issue corrections indicating that, in fact, the arctic sea ice had not recovered. Right? I’m waiting…

As Coby Beck points out it is worth remembering that:

This month’s numbers reveal nothing about climate change, of course. It does however reveal something about climate denial.

7 Responses to Arctic sea ice melting fast, near June all time low

  1. And you are a fool.

    Give up this warmed-over Gaia worship crud. No one cares enough to do any more than mouth platitudes about it. Even if they believe the models, they all recognize that the costs are too high, the benefits are too low and accrue to far in the future, and warming just ain’t so bad. When you add in the “uncertainty” of the models’ accuracy, you can just about discount the expected value of the benefit of any expediture to adress AGW to approximately $1.50.

    We’ll take our chances, thank you. The issue is on life-support.

    But thanks for your assessment of my intelligence. You know me so well.

  2. @ Abuabasabat

    If you make idiotic comments here, expect to be called out on them. If you make comments that are contradicted by every single relevant scientific society with out even attempting to provide any sources to back up your claims*, expect to be an idiot.

    But please explain to me why agreeing with the scientific community (on a matter of science) is foolish.

    @KevinG

    The only reason I am concerned is because people like Abuabasabat can drag us all down as the tide changes.

    ***********
    *and if you do provide sources they better be legitimate scientific sources, ie NOT from a random blog or think tank. This is science after all and anyone who wishes to challenge the consensus needs to clear that basic minimum standard.

  3. My comments are contradicted by SCIENTISTS?

    Which one?

    That I don’t care about AGW? Or that warmth is good? Or that cold is bad?

    Or maybe it’s that computer models are always wrong. Well, the jury’s out on that one as far as AGW models go. But shall we consider other global temperature/precipitation/wind models? They SUCK! More than 24hrs out, at least. The best man can do is say that spring will be warmer than winter, summer warmer still, with a cool-down expected in autumn. And we modeled that 998,879 years ago. Nothing like the oldies.

    (Don’t bother to go into the riff that “climate is not weather.” We’ve heard it all before. I am talking about predictive models of complex global interactions. OK?)

    Therefore, I say this clown remains UNcontradicted by SCIENTISTS, Dan. Warm is good, Cold is bad. Computer models untrustworthy.

    KevinG, I am not worried about the tide. I am not such an idiot that I can’t see it rising … and MOVE.

    The idiots are the ones who just stay there screaming that the I caused the rising tide and I should change my behavior to stop it. As if.

  4. My comments are contradicted by SCIENTISTS? Which one?

    Surely you can figure that out? No? Well how about your comment that models are always wrong? They aren’t (even weather models), and that is precisely why they are useful. If they were always and consistently wrong there would be no point in using them. But weather forecasts are pretty good (though obviously not as good as I like), and climate models have successfully hindcasted over 100 years of climate. Obviously this doesn’t prove that they will get the next 100 years right, but it does give us confidence in their results.

    Or how about your statement that:

    warmth is good

    Also wrong (in the context of AGW). Estimates of the impacts of AGW show that the costs are at least an order of magnitude greater than the benefits.

    Those two statements have been refuted by the vast majority of scientists, the IPCC the National Academies of Science from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USA, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and thousands of peer-reviewed journals.

    But this post isn’t even about the validity of AGW, it is about the inconsistency and dishonesty of climate change deniers.

    If you wish to post here again. please stay on topic.

Leave a Reply