One universal theme of climate experts on the government dole, is to claim that snow and ice are diminishing due to atmospheric CO2. As with everything else about this scam, they are lying.
Over the past decade, average Arctic sea ice area has increased.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Antarctic sea ice area has been increasing, and above normal for almost all of the last five years.
iphone.anomaly.antarctic.png (512×412)
Since CO2 hit 350 PPM, average Northern Hemisphere snow cover has increased.
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab
Since the “official” start of the satellite era, fall/winter snow extent is up 10%.
None of this is consistent with the fraudulent temperature claims made by other people on the government dole.
The ice comes and goes, but what keeps expanding are the “cries-o-fear”.
Thanks, Steven aka Tony, for your frank and candid assessment of current government “science.”
Today I plan to post a statement on “Science Ethics in a Free Society“ on the “Neutron Repulsion,” “Climate Sceptics” & “It Is the Sun” discussion group web sites.
And I plan to dive into the sea level acceleration question with renewed vigor stoked by a week end of frivolity celebration and other refreshments.
How can it be when every year is the warmest year EVER?
I heard our old friend Al Gore on the radio yesterday. He blamed “deniers” for planting seeds of doubt about the climate “crisis” for personal gain. He blamed the media for allowing deniers to have their views aired. We must be silenced or everyone is going to die. Maybe not today, but sooner or later!
Can anyone here claim to have personally gained by being a skeptic? I’d obviously like to get a piece of that action if there is a way to gain.
I have personally gained credibility and knowledge, plus I’ve had untold hours of fun mocking the weak minded. Now let’s check Gore’s scorecard.
People who live in glass greenhouses should not throw stones.
I’ve also expanded my understanding of how we are being robbed. Of course, it has its limitations. As one of my dark-haired girlfriends liked to put it, psychotherapy helps to get to know your demons but it doesn’t drive them away.
Just like many two-legged snakes … they accuse others of what they themselves have actually done. Al and the climate priests have profited handsomely from trying to convince us all that AGW is real and a threat. Why doesn’t Al point out even one person who doubts AGW that is gaining personally by doing so? The answer is … he cannot. But just like with AGW, it is easier for them to make wild unsupported claims, than to deal with the truth.
Then Andy DC writes “I’d obviously like to get a piece of that action if there is a way to gain.” Somehow I suspect that even if there WAS some way, that you and most skeptics have fully functioning consciences and would likely not be willing to go against them, even if for monetary gain. Obviously the climate priests have no such limitations on them or compunctions for that matter.
I told you all the DMI graph was borked since last summer
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/iceextent_disagreement_is_an_artifact.uk.php
Surprised other people did not question it on here…..
Andy
DMI. did exactly the WRONG thing from a scientific basis.
They altered the methodology for a long-running data set without telling anyone.
The real question is, WHY.??????
They already had a new, separate data set.
They was absolutely no reason to alter the CONSISTENCY of the older data set.
the only reason I can think of would be to destroy the old one.!
“The real question is, WHY.??????”
Heh!
Take a guess!
Unless basically forced to by someone……..
….. or by a lot of money and short-term pseudo-prestige…..
I can see no reason why a scientist would compromise their own work. !!
My normal impulse in cases like this is to suspect individual or institutional incompetence but the story of the destruction of the inconvenient DMI graph is pretty strange. The more people like Andy gloat over it, the more I wonder how it all transpired.
They said they no longer looked after that graph as it was an old product, they have said that on their page for ages. That’s why when it hit 2016 it went back to 2015 and stayed black rather than changing to a new colour. Because they were no longer looking at the graph they changed the methodology without thinking lots of people were still reading the graph even though advised not to.
No need for tinfoil hats. It was obvious as well something had changed as it was out of kilter with even their other graph. It wasn’t questioned in here, apart from me and the odd other person, because it showed bigger extent. If it had shown reduced extent it would have been cross examined more 😉
Andy
Also, are you sure the cryosphere is expanding? From Cryosphere source
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Andy
Which one, if any, of SG’s graphs is incorrect ?
Andy, Andy..
where did he go ? where did he go !!!
It’s his assumption from the graphs that is incorrect. You can see from my graph above, from source that the cryosphere is not expanding since 2006. It’s currently below average.
Andy