Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940

In 1940, Arctic sea ice was two meters thick.

23 Feb 1940 – THE NORTH POLE

In 1958, Arctic sea ice was about two meters thick.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic

Arctic sea ice is now two meters thick.

DMI Modelled ice thickness

All of the official fake news agencies and fake government agencies have been claiming that Arctic sea ice is getting thinner.

A Bush Administration official said last week that all the thick multi-year ice is gone.

Changes in Arctic Ice Patterns Could Be Catastrophic | At the Edge | US News

As is almost always the case with government officials and journalists, they were lying. Nearly half of the Arctic is covered with multi-year ice.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

287 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940

  1. Me says:

    Just inagine, when all the ice is over on the Russian side? Like that is going to happen with all the rivers pouring out over there!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Not to mention all the rivers they use in Russia for industrial cooling including once through nuclear plants…

      • Caleb says:

        The rivers pour in every year. But In January those rivers are frozen nearly to their bottoms, and the flow is reduced to a trickle. The Lena River has only 3% of its yearly flow in January. In August it really gets roaring and the water can rise 60 feet. To me this is amazing, but to the tough folk in Siberia it is all, “Ho Hum”.

        If you actually sit and watch the ice as a hobby it is a wonder and is fascinating. It really annoys me when some person who has never studied it comes in and makes an inane statement about there being no multi-year ice.

        I far prefer to talk with people who can offer a descent debate, and teach me something new.

        By the way, Gail, have you noticed the Layman’s Sunspot count is past 23 days of the sun being spotless? The “Quiet Sun” is likely behind any changing patterns, in my opinion.

        Take care, and Happy New Year!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks for the report. If I load the Layman’s Sunspot count my computer wants to crash so I do so sparingly.

          ….So many great websites, so little computing ability…

          I really need a newer computer. I think this one is close to 20 years old.

        • Tom Clar says:

          AMEN! The sun provides the vast majority of Eart’hs heat
          The green house theory(!) is merely talking about magnifying/retaining the Sun’s heat. So it only stands to reason that the basic source not being consistent and having Mauder Effects and now going into a minimum is going to be less warm! This not melting the ice as quickly or extensively! Turn that around and it gets hot here! The variations of the Sun’s output have WAY more effect then anything else in particular man made!

        • chicago860 says:

          But, but…DeCaprio said…

      • ColoIce says:

        Gail, new to this site, like your style and research. Thumbs up.

    • Jlobur says:

      Forget all the science. If carbon fuels are causing a problem for humanity, why not outlaw them? Why allow people to keep using them if they pay a carbon tax? Isn’t that like saying murder is harmful, but go ahead and kill as long as you pay someone a murder tax? By the way, don’t even talk to me about air quality until you spend a few weeks in any large chineses city.

      • Jlobur says:

        Chinese city.

      • John Tidball says:

        I would agree if that were the problem. It’s not.

      • Sandy says:

        Carbon tax? The biggest hoax to steal even more money from everybody! If you believe in the carbon tax then you have obviously done NO research and are listening to the left yet again. Any build up in the atmosphere is blown out into space, not harmfel to anyone, anywhere, anytime. China does not use clean coal burning whereas the U.S. does. Don’t be so lazy, do your research! Make China convert to clean coal burning. They won’t, it costs too much so they just kill all their people.

      • John Best says:

        How about…..THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE?!?!? Moron

        • ilse says:

          Now that was an intelligent reply.

          • David A says:

            Indeed, Jlobur was pointing out that REVENUE is clearly their goal, not preventing CAGW.

            IMV, a worthy message. Hell, for a fraction of the cost we could have planted billions of trees by now, a far more effective CO2 reduction would have occurred.

      • Gator69 says:

        21,000 innocent humans starve to death, needlessly, every day. If we stopped the Chicken Little BS, we could save 7 million people a year. But leftists hate humanity, and they invent schemes to enslave us, and in the process commit genocide.

        CO2 is the essence of life, and fighting it only brings misery and death.

      • Rich W says:

        In 1820, about a billion people were in poverty when there were only slightly more than a billion people in the world. Now there are 7 billion and still only a billion in poverty. Carbon has fueled the dramatic percentage reduction of poor people in the world. Carbon restrictions will be most deleterious for the poorest in the word. Why don’t all the people who want to outlaw carbon just stop using carbon in their cars, stop using electricity from coal plants, stop smoking, stop drinking carbonated drinks? Hey, I’m not asking you to stop exhaling CO2, just practice what you preach instead of caterwauling for it to be enforced through restrictive laws and injurious taxes. Or, be a true progressive and push for new technologies like thorium and fusion reactors!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Don’t forget all the plastics and medicines made from petroleum. Also without coal/electricity you have to give up all metals except copper, silver and gold — if you can still find any nuggets on the surface.

        • Steve S says:

          Rich W – carbon has indeed fueled the dramatic decrease in the global incidence of poverty. To be more precise, in the global distribution of commodities that ease poverty.
          It is useful to note that the variety and the ubiquity of carbon-based fuels and fertilizers is a consequence of the liberal idea that common workers can invent useful things, coupled with the novel heresy that they can also make and keep profits from their intellectual property. Those notions are at odds with the arc of history in which elites impose privilege over commoners’ inventiveness, claiming that their elite pedigree is supreme, and the profits are theirs.
          I think I detect such illiberal thinking behind the carbon tax, since it does nothing to incentivize and reward inventiveness at the common worker level. It is a token-trading game for the privileged. That’s a shame, because widespread, bottom-up tinkering has done more for humanity in two hundred years than top-down patronage has done throughout the rest of recorded history.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Outlaw carbon fuels!!!

        Oh NO! After all the British and Dutch royal families and the Rothschilds and Rockefellers own Shell Oil. How could they continue to screw the peasants if a source of their income is outlawed.?

        • Zap says:

          They also own Big Finance (JPM, Goldman etc) and Big Government (CFR TLC, BG etc)

          Those are the 3 industries that would benefit the most from a carbon cap/tax/trading scheme. Big Oil through profits on price increases exceeding any reductions in demand, Big Finance through middle manning and skimming from any trading schemes, this market will be huge for them as it will be leveraged in the derivatives markets 10x 20x 50x even 100x times the nominal value of the underlying market as all markets are these days. Big Government in the form of higher taxes and another regressive tax at that.


          Big Middle Class….Big Everybody Else.

          Amazing but 90% of people don’t even know the Rockefeller’s own any oil at all when it used to be common knowledge that they owned a majority share in most US oil companies. This is how well people like this hide their ownership interest’s using a maze of foundations, trusts and endowments. Same goes for their partners the Rothschild’s.

      • Alex Alekhine says:

        Warmer is better.

        Near the poles, virtually no life is sustained.

        Within a couple of hundred miles each side of the equator there is a riot of abundant life.

        Warmer is better.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Also most of the land is north however it is not good farmland because it is too cold. De-Sal via nuclear can water deserts but it is tough to thaw frozen land/crops

      • Greg Taylor says:

        You have hit the jai on the head. In the 70’s we reduced the speed limit to 55 due to oil shortages but today, to ‘save the planet’, no one would ever consider doing such a thing even though automobile CO2 emission would drop substantially!

        • Squavy says:

          The 55 mph national speed limit was due to the ‘energy crisis’. I remember being told we had 50 years of oil left. In reality there was never a shortage. The only crisis was Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy.

          (Cars are not more fuel efficient at 55 mph – if anything they are more fuel efficient at higher speeds. But 55 mph indirectly curtails the distance a middle class family can travel autonomously.)

    • Craig says:

      Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is worried that Russia will tip over if all the ice is over on their side.

    • Craig says:

      Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is worried that Russia will tip over if all the ice is on their side.

      • Barack Obama says:

        It is tipping as we speak, all the people leaning and turning – or is that the beer?

      • ilse says:

        Is that same Rep that says that Guam will tip over if more people move there? And he was preaching to an Admiral. I felt sorry for the Admiral to have to even answer the idiotic questions and pretend to take him serious.

  2. Pingback: CLAIM: Arctic Sea Ice Same Thickness As 1940… – Killuminati Records

  3. aeroguy48 says:

    Here come the Drudger’s

    • cjx says:

      What’s wrong with the drudgers?

    • Chuck Smith says:

      Harder and harder to keep the lie alive, is it not?

    • SofaKingCool1 says:

      Since you were only the second responder, clearly you are following Drudge…

    • Econ Guy says:

      When you have no facts, pseudo intellectuals always imply a lack of intelligence to their betters.

      • Dr. Denan says:

        A defining trait of pseudo intellectuals is their ego-based claims to know what others ‘always’ think.

      • Harry says:

        How many scientists had tons of data yet still got it wrong? Probably most likely. Look at nutrition and health. Tons of knowledge little understanding. Cancer heart disease and diabetes run rampant despite knowledge.

        • ron says:

          How about the flat earth? THAT was “settled science!!” As was the Sun rotating around the Earth!! A hangin’ offense was disagreeing with the “scientific consensus” on that one! Almost like disagreeing with the AGW priesthood!!

          • Clifra says:

            Well, most mariners (i.e. sailors) knew as far back as the Alexander knew the earth was round. You just did not say that once the Roman Empire was gone or you might get burned at the stake!

          • Strato says:

            There are people even today that believe the world is flat. Coincidentally, many of them also believe climate change is a hoax and the moon landings were faked. Some people will believe in falsehoods, no matter the quality or quantity of evidence to the contrary.

          • tonyheller says:

            The only scientist to have walked on the moon is a prominent climate skeptic.

            Know-nothing idiots like you are toxic to civil society.

          • David Collins says:

            Wait! What about butter is bad and margarine is good? Now, after 35 years, they’re all saying “Uhm, yeah, about that low-fat thing, forget we said that”.

          • John F Hultquist says:

            ron @ 6:28
            How about the flat earth? THAT was “settled science!!”

            Some folks thought so, but not all.
            In 240 B.C., the Greek, Eratosthenes, calculated the Earth’s circumference. He was a little off. Still he had the correct concept. Earth’s shape was known to be round long before him.
            You should read:
            Flat Earth Myth
            Search for:
            Draper, with a little help from Washington Irving,

          • AndyG55 says:

            “There are people even today that believe the world is flat.”

            Yep, you only have to look at Trenberth’s representation of energy transfer.

            A flat 2d non-rotational Earth. The basis for “climate change™” energy calculations.

            That is exactly what the “chiefs” of the AGW scam show to their brain-washed believers.

            Now go and take both feet out of your idiot gob, Strato.

          • Gail Combs says:

            You can always spot the Brain-dead Progressives. They parrot the same time worn illogical propaganda they learned from a cartoonist.

            Very much one-trick donkey’s rears.

          • David A says:

            Yep, long debunked talking points, with screams of ” fossil fuel funded ” research being the last refuge.

    • Ima says:

      Chicken Littles FEAR Drudgers. Btw mental midget, that apostrophe makes it a possessive pronoun, which makes your comment unintelligible; Here come the Drudger’s WHAT? dumbass

      • JDB, Esq. says:

        You can always detect a lefty – – they’re just so nasty.

      • Gerald Marquardt says:

        Ima you go!!

      • Pismobird says:

        Good Catch!
        Whilst upon my daily graze;
        I filled me crabpot with these keepers, eek:
        «»Weather we are old or not we can be wise…
        «»designed to sure up insolvent Wall Street bank…
        «»”…7% which isn’t enough but even that will put some CA public entities close to the edge. Add in raising interest rates.”

        Oh my aching intransitive passive perfect participles.
        ( rises on its own or if it’s raising something else.)
        No Charge.

        ladies and gentlemen the President of the United States!

    • Ima says:

      Chicken Littles FEAR Drudgers. Btw mental midget, that apostrophe makes it a possessive pronoun, which makes your comment unintelligible; Here come the Drudger’s WHAT? dumbasss

      • ron says:

        He will probably insist YOU’RE wrong, because he’s always done it that way, and he’s SURE he was told in school that that was the way to do it…

    • Jay says:

      Yes I came from Drudge’s link so what? I also regularly check Marc Morano’s Climate Depot. Got a problem with that? Blow it out your backside.

    • Ornery says:

      Proud Drudger!

    • Jason Stone says:

      Drudge is the sunlight that disinfects the delusions of the left.

      • ron says:

        Drudge is one of the sources most hated by the left, because of the info presented there, and the most popular amongst all groups, including libs, because so many things are made available there. At least lefties can use the fact that they got info from Drudge to put together a manic attack AGAINST Drudge for being “biased,” once they have the info they want, of course…

    • ole sparkie says:

      Mankind is so ALL-POWERFUL that simply farting in the wrong direction has a butterfly effect of melting the polar ice caps! You believe that, right?

    • thaydude says:

      Now…now….we mustn’t be judgemental

    • j says:

      No, here comes the truth.

    • Prelusive007 says:

      . . . but first. . . here’s “aeroguy48” traipsing in with one thumb up his ass and the other thumb up his husband’s ass; singing “merrily we roll along, roll along, roll along” all the live long day. . . .

      • aeroguy48 says:

        Numbnuts, I’ve been a long time reader here. Even before the blog was called deplorable. Hell now it should be known as the anti-‘Fake’ news site.

    • Riteaidbob says:

      I get all my news from Al Gore and Al said the north pole would be ice free by now. (crickets chirp)

    • mttiro67 says:

      It’s Drudgers, without the apostrophe. There is no word in the entire English language that forms its plural with an apostrophe.

    • DeplorableDan says:

      Global Warming Hysteria is produced by two things.

      Spending 10 mil/day to manufacture supportive papers (you don’t get paid for coming up with the wrong answer

      Profound ignorance of Earth History, which, in a net shell is, The planet has been cooling for the past 50 mil yrs, and we’re far far below normal in temp, and GHGs.

    • Andy says:

      For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

      1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

      1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times

      1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

      1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune

      1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

      1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

      1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?

      1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

      1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933

      1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

      1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

      1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune

      1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

      1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962

      1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report

      1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine

      1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times

      1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969

      1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

      1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

      1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine

      1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post

      1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

      1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
      Cassandras are becoming
      increasingly apprehensive,
      for the weather
      aberrations they are
      studying may be the
      harbinger of another
      ice age

      1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975

      1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine

      1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report

      1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times

      1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context

      1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989

      1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

      1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report

      1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

      2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001

      2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003

      2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

      And so on, and so on…

      • factscount says:

        And the conclusion drawn is that in the past 200 years, the climate has changed from hot to cold to cold to hot in cyclical events. During those times of heat, the science was global warming, and in times of cold, the science was ice age cooling. Science seems to be whatever the weather is at the time and has been for the past 200 years. Will the future be any different?

      • samiam says:

        Science is just a series of mulligans.

    • js says:

      Drudger’s what?

    • Steve says:

      Are you opposed to those that are smarter and more informed than you are?

  4. SJR6646 says:

    Makes Sense To Me , These Dishonest Morons Have Been Lying To Us In Most Cases For Money In Other Cases To Get The US To Change You Will Notice They Do Not Pressure Russia,China,India I WONDER why.

    • Henry says:

      The same reason they don’t whine and whimper over Muslims refusing service to certain classes of people or Islam being taught in public schools. They don’t really care at all about right or wrong, they only want whatever is bad for America because they were too ugly to be popular in school or they got beat up every day or one of their classmates found out about their bed wetting problem. They are bitter back stabbers who wear dirty underwear and pick their noses. Have you ever read anything here written by a liberal which was not done in anger rather than civil discussion?

    • Strato says:

      Why Do You Capitalize The Beginning Of Each Word You Write? It Is Not Correct English And Actually Makes Typing More Of A Chore.

  5. Bob says:

  6. Bill Long says:

    I rode to the North Pole on the icebreaker “50 Years of Victory” in 2008 and asked the captain how much less the ice is than when he started going there 30 years ago. He told me the ice is the same thickness there as it was 30 years ago. Hasn’t changed at all. But of course the edge of the ice coverage may and probably has diminished since then.

    • Dave W says:

      I used to map the ice edge flying out of Iceland in the 90’s. I don’t really see any change to note between then and now.

      • JDB, Esq. says:

        Obviously you must not be a lefty who always try to make money off imaginary things, like buy, selling, and trading carbon.

    • Strato says:

      Exactly. The “thickness” of the ice is relatively unchanged, and the use of this word to describe the ice is problematic, at best. What matters is the edge of the ice, or the extant, at the end of the melting period, which has been declining year after year. Ice that, in years past, doesn’t melt during the melting season is now melting.

  7. jerry snaper says:

    It doesn’t matter a fig. None of the high govt. officials getting obscenely rich on the global warming will not be sailing their yachts there. They prefer the warmer climates.

  8. Dennis says:

    Imagine that…someone linked to this story. Why, the Deplorables!!

  9. Tomas rader says:

    Consider tye fake news source. MSM is NOAA n newsweek. Zero credibility remains. Might as well quote national lampoon or the onion. LOL

  10. Daveh says:

    It’s been warming for 10,000 years…. I guess cars and factories were around back then to start the trend…. I’d rather talk to a schizophrenic on a bus than an global warmer, the conversation will be far more real…

    • Andy Ricks says:

      Where are you getting your bogus facts that it has been “Warming” for 10,000 years?

      • Mark Moser says:

        Apparently, you haven’t heard about the numerous ice ages before industrialization. It is to one of these Daveh is refers I’m sure. Heck, we haven’t even passed the high temps warmists claimed existed in the preindustrial medieval warming period, so you’d think they would hold off on the sky’s falling rhetoric until at least that particular milepost had been past.

      • Greybeard says:

        The ice sheet covering all of Canada, and parts of the northern US started to retreat then. If you were at all informed, you would know that the earth has gone from ice ages to warming on a 105-110,000 year cycles. This information comes from real scientists studying ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica. Real scienctist vs charlitons.

      • Tymtrvlr says:

        I blame it on Prometheus for giving the cavemen fire. That’s what started all this warming stuff, using fire to cook, heat their dank caves, instead of a george foreman grill and solar heater.

      • Daveh says:

        How can people be so acutely ignorant to ask such questions, and with arrogance….

    • Gail Combs says:

      ERRRR, I think you mean cooling for 10,000 years.

      • bubbagyro says:

        Why is the Y-Axis upside down?
        Coolest is at the top?

      • DD More says:

        Thanks for posting the temp range, people often get the its warming / its cooling wrong.
        A couple of facts that confirm the temps range further than the Greenland peak.

        An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.
        Stumps and logs have been popping out from under southern Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier — a 36.8-square-mile (95.3 square kilometers) river of ice flowing into a lake near Juneau — for nearly the past 50 years. However, just within the past year or so, researchers based at the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau have noticed considerably more trees popping up, many in their original upright position and some still bearing roots and even a bit of bark, the Juneau Empire first reported last week.

        Trees don’t grow under glaciers, so it was open land then. 1000 ya => Medieval Warming.

        Furthermore, we now know that many of the glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago. As a case in point, there is a glacier to the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen Glacier. It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick. A Scandinavian research team bored ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist.

        4000 ya => Minoan Warming.

    • Stu says:

      Good one – schizophrenic on a bus! :) Daveh, yes it has been relatively warm for over 10,000 years now, in the current interglacial period called the Holocene, but within that period it has definitely been getting slowly cooler. There are ups and downs, but the overall trend during the Holocene is cooler.

      Of course the entire period is still more than ten degrees warmer than during the last glacial period.

  11. DeplorableTexan says:

    Just wait until these “officials” and “newspeople” are shivering in 2018-2021….when the sunspot cycle hits the minimum.

    And even worse — during a new Maunder Minimum 2029-2033. They will be begging for the sun to warm us up.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The sun has been spotless the last couple days and the TSI (Total Solar Insolaton – energy put out) is ALREADY lower than NASA’s ‘Deep Solar Minimum’ of 2009.

      • Wildgulo says:

        Thank you Gail….Data? Reason? Perish the thought. Thank God so many people are watching this and actively questioning. This is the basis of good science, which seems to have been lost in the PC, fascistic cacophony of the alarmists. Challenge the paradigm..question the Polemic.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Thank you Gail….Data? Reason?”

          Hang around.. Gail has LOTS of it !

          Only 3 line of text there.. you wait until she get’s going :-)

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          And with Gail you never know if you want to get her going … :)

          Her motto is:

          Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning Satan shudders and says:

          “Oh, shit, she’s awake!”

        • Gail Combs says:

          Do you really really want several pages of links??? (Tony only allows me four)

          So just a quick and dirty.
          Δ solar λ ==> Δ ozone ==> Δ Brewer-Dobson circulation ==> Shift in jets and wind strength ==> changes in the wind that drives the Antarctic Circumpolar Current ==> changes in the amount of cold water sent up the coasts of South America and Africa and that will affect ENSO and the Gulf Stream.

          Solar also changes the pattern of the jets from zonal to meridonal.

          TSI (total solar insolation) stays relatively constant but the mix of wave lengths does not.
          SEE: NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise

          Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum

          Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate by inducing atmospheric changes… Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759 +/- 39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199 +/- 9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.

          The reason for looking at the Antarctic instead of the Arctic.
          Growing Antarctic Ice Sheets May Have Sparked Ice Age
          If Drake Passage gets blocked with ice it changes the world ocean circulation pattern. Again remember the current is WIND DRIVEN so ice on the surface will slow the water down.

          And that doesn’t even get into Atmospheric Dynamical Responses to Solar Wind Variations on the Day-to-Day Timescale or the Solar Magnetic Field.

    • Johnnydoh says:

      And they will still blame it on oil.

  12. DeplorableTexan says:

    Just wait until these “officials” and “newspeople” are shivering in 2018-2021….when the sunspot cycle hits the minimum.

    And even worse — during a new Maunder Minimum 2029-2033. They will be begging for the sun to warm us up.

    • realetybytes says:

      The what? According to the IPCC, the sun has nothing to do with warming the earth.

      • Caleb says:

        Which is why it gets warmer when the sun goes down. /sarc.

        In actual fact there is all sorts of wonderful debate going on about a number of different ways the sun effects our climate, beyond the effect of visible light.

        • Gail Combs says:

          DON’T Get me started…

          I think I am well over 20 pages of notes on various studies by now.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Oh, heck, I’ll put up Dr Evans at least since he has a good prediction. INDEX to articles

          • Strato says:

            Yup. That guy is a mathematician/software engineer, I’m sure he is an expert on climate science because, as his resume states, he has studied it without any formal training. Hey, I have a degree in computer science with emphasis on software engineering and I’ve read a few climate articles, guess that makes me an expert on climate science too, right? Oh wait, my wife isn’t making a living as a climate skeptic, guess I don’t have the motive for cashing in on the climate change hoax.

          • Neal S says:

            Strato attacks in a predictable way. Since Evans makes predictions, you could wait and see how those turn out. Incidentally all the ‘climate-models’ have failed miserably in their predictions. I guess for true believers, this is something they would rather deny or overlook.

          • bailcon says:

            Hey Neal, or Gail, would one of you point me in the right direction on the subject of methane being a greenhouse gas or not, please?

          • Gail Combs says:

            “Dr David Evans earned six degrees** related to modeling and applied mathematics over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University. He was instrumental in building the carbon accounting system Australia uses to estimate carbon changes in its biosphere, for the Australian Greenhouse Office. “

            So yes, I think he is very well qualified to tear down and rebuild the model that is used by ClimAstrologists. He also put his work up for a public critique and used the feedback he got to rework his model. I followed a lot of that critique and so did many others with science degrees in various fields.

            **Dr. Evan six university degrees are in mathematics and electrical engineering. He earned them over a ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) from Stanford University, B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc. from the University of Sydney. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing, and trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.

          • Colorado Wellington says:


            Report to the temple for further instructions.

          • Gail Combs says:

            bailcon says: “Hey Neal, or Gail, would one of you point me in the right direction on the subject of methane being a greenhouse gas…”

            First the definition.
            Using the term greenhouse gas to mean it can grab a photon at the temperature the Earth is admitting. So yes it is a ‘greenhouse gas’


            Note that oxygen and nitrogen (NOx) react with incoming sunlight so it is the temperature of the emitting body = wavelengths that is important.

  13. Texas Marty says:

    Let’s see…the last ice age (about 14,000 years ago) carved out the Great Lakes and glaciers extended into most of the present U.S. Then the earth started to warm ALL BY ITSELF while the first humans were sitting around campfires. This was the last of about six or seven documentable ice ages of our geological history.

    Question: If the NATURAL cycle of earth’s climate includes that kind of warming and cooling, how can a fraction or so of ONE DEGREE be contributed to mankind with any kind of credibility????

    The whacko wing of the environmental movement is the present day residence of defeated communists and socialists. It’s all about loss of INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY!

  14. D3F1ANT says:

    LOL! Pay no attention to the data behind the curtain! Global Warming is melting ALL THE ICE! I’m SHOCKED that the coasts haven’t flooded yet! WHERE CAN WE HIDE!?

    Oh wait…there IS no warming? The ice is THE SAME?

    LOL! DUH!

  15. Domenico says:

    Dittos, Texas Marty…

    The greatest variables to the change the Temp of the Earth itself (Crust, Mantle and Core) and the big yellow dot in the sky that is 93 million miles away. As a Chemical Engineer, to measure a 0.1 or .01 degree temp change has some variability in itself let alone pinpointing the change to CO2 emissions, Global Warmers are just frankly clueless on the science, and to build prediction models based on 0.1 degree changes or even a degree or two change is insane. The meteorologist can’t even predict the weather with 95% confidence interval and the R^2 adjustment for the models are so low, I can roll the dice and have better prediction.

    • Ted Johnson says:

      Have you ever tried to accurately measure 0.1 degrees? To do so, your device must be accurate to 0.01. So you are talking really expensive and requires constant attention and calibration. The entire system is just not that sophisticated. If they had a pot of boiling water at sea level, for years, they would see 0.1 degree variations, or greater, year in and year out. Then they would blame the CO2, disovling in the water, creating carbonic acid, increasing the boiling point. Viola, global warming!!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Domenico, the Climastrologist wouldn’t know a significant figure if it bit them in the rump!

      The also don’t know the correct way to present data.
      Like this:

      Historic CO2 by Ernest Beck

  16. BulSprig says:

    The LOONIE Leftees will all perish in the coming cool down. Those who know how to live off the land will survive. Loonies will try to steal food, that’ll work for
    for awhile.Until they run into a gun.

  17. Mkelley says:

    I had -23 degrees F. this morning in Montana. Where was the warming we were promised?

  18. Daniel says:

    “Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness as 1940.”

    Leftists: “See? Global Warming!”

  19. PeakOiler says:

    From the article — “A Bush Administration official said last week that all the thick multi-year ice is gone.” Still blaming Bush for everything? It was Obama’s administration making this false claim.

    • Bytor says:

      Umm, yes & no … There were several Bush era “officials” that were making such claims. There were several Clinton era “officials” that were making such claims. There are many Obama era “officials” making such claims.

      Such claims date back at least 20+ years or more.

    • Steve Fraser says:

      A PR guy…

  20. Truebelieversmustgonorthnow says:

    All the warmers MUST move to Canada or other northern hemispheric countries, to escape the warming NOW! They need to move as far north as they can, preferably settling in and using their own solar and wind power generators. They above all others, need to show leadership by example, and move to far northern climes. Perhaps it can be legislated out of respect for their beliefs, of course, that warmers must move to the most northern places. Give them land grants to assist them in their new lives. No wood burning fireplaces/stoves allowed; otherwise, their carbon footprint would be too large.

    • Clifra says:

      There is an easier method. Make them spend the night in the desert with no coat, blanket or fire! It is damn cold! Why? No cloud cover to keep the heat in. Which tells you one basic fact! Space is really, really cold unless you have solar radiation hitting you! If you keep lowering the elements that keep the “precious” heat in, it is gonna get real cold real fast!

  21. J.P. Travis says:

    You gotta fix that Bush Administration reference. It’s bugging me.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Remember the head of the Bush clan said he was voting Hillary. Seems we really have a Uni-party as Quigley suggest was needed in “Tragedy and Hope”

    • Bytor says:

      Why? .. it’s true. It has been true for the past 3 Presidential administrations (including Obama).

  22. Ron Hyatt says:

    Your days are numbered, Warming Globullies.

  23. Pingback: CLAIM: Arctic Sea Ice Same Thickness As 1940... | ValuBit News

  24. Morris Minor says:

    Government NEVER has to tell us the truth. Remember? They can lie with impunity and there will be no repercussions.

  25. Walt says:

    Hey folks. Does your water glass overflow as the ice cubes melt? No. The Arctic ice floats. Its melting will not raise sea levels. The only melting that can raise sea levels is from ice and snow on land, as in Antarctica and the glaciers. The story on Antarctica seems equivocal. There is no question that glaciers are shrinking the world over.

    • tonyheller says:

      NASA says Antarctica is gaining ice. You have no idea what you are talking about

    • Gail Combs says:

      You would prefer the glaciers to INCREASE?

      Oh, yeah here is one that is increasing… I wouldn’t want it in my backyard. (The Moraine full of copperheads from the last glaciation was bad enough.)

    • David A says:

      Wt, also the Southern Oceans have been cooling for a couple of decades. Just as Antarctica sea ice has been trending higher.

  26. Dindu Nuffin says:

    My good friend is a world renowned physicist and has the best explanation. “The science doesn’t matter, it’s much more complicated than anybody thinks or can quantify. It’s all in what a person believes, it’s like religion.” The left BELIEVES in catastrophic climate change and there is no reason or logic that will enter into their thought. Just think of the amount of money that has and will change hands because of “climate change”! Who thinks it’s all a noble cause?

  27. Wayne Q says:

    The Climate Winers have changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change to cover all the bases. If you can’t win, change the rules!

  28. Art Mayer says:

    Global warming pushed to institute carbon tax on the world. Pretty soon they will charge you tax to breath. More government control, tax for driving your car. Money for using more fuel to heat your home etc. It a $$$, and control of the population. JMHO

  29. HIKER BIKER says:

    What use is it to argue that season’s change? On this map, ou can see the great rivers from Russia obviously affect the water temperature. The earth is around 14 billion years old. Ice comes and goes. Stuff becomes extinct. I occasionally catch a cold. So what!

  30. El Deplorablo says:

    Those rascally Russians – first, tampering with the election, now messing with the ice. When will they ever learn?

  31. DarkStarAz says:

    Deplorable Drudger Right Here!

  32. R3futer says:

    This is more evidence against AGW that the Warmiacs will try to deny.

  33. Jim janda says:

    Whenever you start to wonder which side is lying, follow the money…
    The AGW crowd tells us that if only we tax people and send the carbon tax money to THEM, they will save us all from Global Warming…..
    This is how you know everything they say is BS.

  34. Hardly Known says:

    You all forget that it’s no longer called GLOBAL WARMING by the demon rat, obungler-spit-licking, gruber leftist loonies. It’s now called CLIMATE CHANGE. Get with the program you deplorables. The darn (replace the r with m) planet has refused to cooperate so much that they had to actually INVENT a new moniker to keep the truly gruber public and their salivating demon rat masters feeding them money while they laugh at the grubers (like SHil-liar-ry telling Goldman Sachs that she has a private ideology that is for them and a public one for the grubers). As obungler’s america-hating pastor has uttered his words, the loony left (canadians, pun IS intended), no one needs repetition.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And that is why we INSIST on calling it Gore Bull Warming!

      • Frank Lansnre says:

        Dear Gail Combs.

        Thank you for comments, you asked me a question that i wont repeat here, i will prefer to just give you the answer:

        The site is temporarily down. Its due to another project that im not make much noise of now, so all is ok :-)

        K.R. Frank

        PS: You dont happen to live in Canada ?

  35. william g johnson says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years. The fact that it maybe heating in a particular year or cooling in another is irrelevant. Now instead of following some silly group-cult try to use reason and reality.

  36. AmusedBystander says:

    It is interesting how the assumption of social panic lies at the heart of much of the left’s rhetoric. “Run, the melting ice will drown us!” is obviously the theme being rebutted here that centers on panic. At a slightly more general level you have “Run, we will roast the world into oblivion because of carbon emissions!” Both are based on fear and inculcation of a panicked attitude.

    Social causes approach things in the same manner in that they assume a right to over-react, including the expectation of over-reaction to small slights, an emotional response similar to the panic from above. The notion of “trigger warnings” runs on the presumption of the civil right to erupt in uncontrolled anger and malice to anything you disagree with or which “threatens” you. So if the Left concludes that white males are automatically “threatening,” the result is the legitimization of the likes of BLM and nasty overweight white females that wish for the “extinction” of white males.

    Frothing at the mouth, yes, but very very dangerous frothing because they are seriously believing their own rhetoric. Mad canines are usually dangerous and often behave irrationally. Watch your hands if trying to pet them.

  37. joe812 says:

    Remember when you could trust the government

  38. Pingback: CLAIM: Arctic Sea Ice Same Thickness As 1940... -

  39. Landscapegenius says:

    during the warming periods Europe Flourished , populations Grew, and the wealth from this Built the great European cathedrals. No warming no fancy churches.
    the glaciers that are melting are from the past ice ages finishing up, trapped by mountain shade for centurys , they kept themselves refridgerated until they became to small and it excelerated greatly .

  40. BIGGY says:


  41. Alex Dubois says:

    I spoke with an environmental engineer several months ago, when he visited my organic fertilizer plant in SW Alabama. I figured that if anyone knew whether “climate change” was an actual thing it would be someone like him. His take was interesting. He simply suggested that I research whether or not that had been a change in climate on Mars. I couldn’t find a reliable source to check such data. His implication being that the sun had far more to do with “climate change” than anything mankind was doing.

    My question is this. Does anyone have such a source? Is there any proof that solar activity is THE driving force behind terrestrial weather?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Try over at WUWT. IIRC the subject was brought up a few years ago.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Here you go, Alex:

      Global Warming on Mars?
      Anthony Watts / August 19, 2014
      Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
      Kate Ravilious
      for National Geographic News
      February 28, 2007

      Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
      “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.

      Money quote:

      Abdussamatov’s work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

      “His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,” said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England’s Oxford University.

      So? Wasn’t Alfred Wegener’s continental drift hypothesis completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion in his day?

      How about dealing with the actual data and conclusions? Mainstream scientific opinion is good to know but consensus has nothing to do with science and the scientific method.

  42. Clymit Change Are Reel says:

    You’re an uneducable bumpkin if you don’t believe gubmit funded scientists.

  43. Rex Reed says:

    Knowing that most liberals are tree huggers and global warming fanatics, explain this anomaly. Isn’t CO2 a plant requirement, and if plants produce O2, what will happen to humans if the plants die once your silly global warming is conquered?

    • MadamDeb says:

      Simple. We had cars in 1940, factories spewing fumes, and no limitations on environmental harms toward humans.

      • tonyheller says:

        Utter nonsense

      • Gail Combs says:

        A history lesson for the Snowflake Dunce.

        Perhaps it could lear the lesson by tossing this Snowflake into a one room cabin in the mountains for a year. Allowing no electric, no running water, an outhouse and a fireplace. Allow it a few milk goats, hand tools and seeds to grow their own food with mason jars to can it. Just watch how quickly they learn the value of ENERGY!

        I have a lot of friends who grew up with no electric, an outhouse and no running water. ‘Little Jimmy’s’ family farmed with horses and when they killed a cow his mother would boil it up in a huge cauldron in the back yard and can the meat. Jimmy never had the chance to get an education passed 6th grade because he was needed as labor. However he still ran a successful business. Two of my bosses escaped this type of situation and managed to get an education by putting themselves through school, No Student Loans for them! One went on to become a corporate VP.

        The huge jump in technology in the last 50 to 100 years is because we freed people from a subsistence farming life style and brain power could FINALLY go into invention. Unfortunately it also meant that excess food/production was available to support more and more brainless parasites; the politicians, bureaucrats and do-nothing gimmes who vote for them.

        In 1790s Farmers made up about 90% of the labor force. The cradle and scythe were introduced and the first patented cast-iron plow. Prior to that crude wooden plows were used, all sowing was done by hand, cultivating was done by hoe, hay and grain was cut with a sickle or sythe, and threshing with flail. — everything powered by human labor. (This was the reason for slavery.)

        Even with the new agricultural implements invented in the following forty years, in 1830 it still took 250-300 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with a walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, a sickle, and a flail.

        THAT is the type of Civilization the SJ Snowflakes pine for with their De-industrialization.

        In 1949, U.S. energy use per person stood at 215 million Btu. per year. While few years ago average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person.

        Energy consumption in the United States shifted from 70 percent wood in 1870, to 70 percent coal in 1900, to 70 percent oil and gas in 1960. Do you really think all that Coal and wood burning PRIOR to 1950 was CLEAN???

        In 1930 farmers were 21% of labor force and it took 15-20 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat. One farmer could now supply 9.8 persons with food.

        Forty years later by 1970, with more inventions, one farmer supplied 75.8 persons and only 3-3/4 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat. 1987 saw a further drop to 3 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat and less than 3% of the labor force. (And yes the amount of land needed per bushel dropped too.)

        Humans have a bright future future ahead if the idiots parasitic Snowflaces would just get the H… out of the way!

  44. Tony says:

    Liberals always need something to worry about. Remember:
    – overpopulation
    – global cooling (don’t deny it, I remember it clearly from the 1970s)
    – nuclear winter
    – alar
    – expanding ozone hole
    Did we all die/freeze/starve over the past 40 years? No, this “global warming” is just the latest liberal hysteria. They are very strange people.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually very easily understood.

      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”― H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women (1918)

  45. MurphDaSurf says:

    How did anyone find correct data with all the crap lies they’ve been found out releasing as genuine facts? Global warming is a Chinese plot to take the U.S. out of the manufacturing industry. You can get just as many reliable scientists who can legitimately refute this crap as there are who are sold out to it. Even its 90+ guru has admitted it’s a bunch of crap. They’ve been caught doctoring data time and time again. FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL AND YOU’LL FIND THE TRUTH!

  46. Pingback: Arctic Sea Ice Is The Same Thickness? | AUN-TV

  47. B. Afraid says:

    Oh my gosh. It will be catastrophic if the ice patterns change. But if it is called “ice patterns evolve” i can handle it. But if there is no change, that will be catastrophic as well. Where will new species come from if it doesn’t change?

    Well, Hitler the ice was the same Trump the ice is the same. They MUST BE the same guy.

    • B. Afraid says:

      No, no, no. Must have gotten mixed up. 1940, Roosevelt was president, saved the free world, today Trump President, screwed the One Worlder, Open Borders, which is the same as saving the free world. Yea. Umm, well, what will happen if George Soros finds out that I didn’t vote for him but voted for Trump?

  48. FinbarOS says:

    Same could be said for the thickness of Al Gores skull.

  49. Pingback: Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940 - Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site : Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site

  50. Bob says:

    This has been really fun to read with all of the clever comments and sarcasm included. The question I have wanted to ask for years is: Why don’t we ever have a rational, civil discussion on primetime television between those supposed experts on both sides giving their reasons for believing the way they do. It is always through “reader’s comments” that I see a real disagreement exposed.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The reason is the skeptics have all the data on their side. ClimAstrologists KNOW we would blow them out of the water. Therefore their only choice is censorship and Ad. Hom attacks.

      Monckton, who is just an knowledgeable amateur was the last to debate (at Oxford) that I know of and he won hands down.

      • David A says:

        This is why I contacted the Trump Trsnsition Team, to suggest Presedential Sponsored Public Policy Debates on subjects like CAGW and Islamic Imigration.

        I tried to get Anthony Watts to do a post suggesting this with potential line ups.

    • Alex S says:

      The left owns the media, and the media wants us to believe that “the science is settled,” right? They claim they won the debate (which never actually happened). It’s a lot easier to claim there was a debate and that your side won than to actually have a debate and win it, particularly when the facts are not on your side.

      Naturally, now that they “won” the debate, they don’t want to offer any opportunities for anyone to question the results. They’re already, in their minds, the total, unequivocal winners; there’s nothing to be gained by further debate. You can’t get any better than “total winner.” Why risk losing even an inch of ground if there is no possible gain to be had?

      Of course, their efforts to shut down the debate completely have failed. While the debate you ask about has not happened, the existence of sites like this one are evidence that the debate is, in fact, happening, even if the left continues beating their pots and pans together and claiming there’s no more need for debate (which would make it unique among political and especially scientific matters– nothing is ever “settled” and “not up for debate”).

      The left has lost considerable ground on the issue, but they know that their side will be at a disadvantage if the media and governments across the world were not running interference for them. They would not need to conspire to hide the Medieval warm period in the Climategate emails, have NASA edit the historical temperature data and fabricate current temps for unmeasured areas to fit the theory, and all of the other chicanery in which they engage to sell their story.

      Now that the “denier” movement has succeeded enough to be a real threat to the AGW narrative, it would behoove the left to finally have that debate and publicly crush their opponents beneath the mountain of facts that they claim they have at their disposal, thus ending the debate for real… but they don’t do that. They cling to the “the debate is over; we won” narrative even though it is increasingly evident that they have not won, and the only reasonable explanation is that they still think they have nowhere to go but down if they actually have the debate. That tells us that they know it’s a sham; they know their so-called scientific truths won’t stand without the protection from journal editors that want to help their patrons keep the government grant gravy train going.

      Even if you were a skeptic of the skeptics, the simple observation regarding how much effort the AGW side puts into avoiding debate and silencing critics ought to give them some real concerns about the AGW side. If the facts are as solidly on their side as they claim, why do they have to keep silencing critics and falsifying data to try to “prove” their point? Facts are stubborn things; if they are on your side, throw caution to the wind and have that debate, and WIN IT!

      If you sit down with an opponent to negotiate on what you already have, you lose.

  51. TheMule61 says:

    OMG!!!… Global Warming is about to start another World War!!!… It’s just like 1940!!!… (drool)…

    • Les Brown says:

      Why would a writer for an insignificant North Queensland, Australia newspaper should have noticed this, 76 years ago and no-one else in the world, is what surprises me.

  52. Dick O says:

    For rick w

    All the lefties should joinPOGO’S club he founde in th 70’s —the non-breathers club. That would end air pollutions deleterious effects on mankind

  53. Pingback: Report on Arctic sea ice unleashes shock waves - BuzzFAQs

  54. Pingback: Report on Arctic sea ice unleashes shock waves

  55. Pingback: Report on Arctic sea ice unleashes shock waves – LibertyREDUX

  56. So I’m not sure if we should be singing, “I’ll stop the world and melt with you” from Modern English or “Ice Ice Baby” from Vanila Ice.

  57. Pingback: Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940 | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog – Pure Hearts International

  58. Cam says:

    Change is simply what the climate does, Man is merely a spectator.

  59. mman says:

    I’m not sure we will have to worry about the Russians much longer. judging by their You Tube videos, if they are within a 20 foot radius of a motor vehicle, their already dead.

  60. Rudy says:

    My solution on how to reduce CO2 is to have everyone on earth, beginning on the same day and time, hold their breath for a few months.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Solution only to apply to those who who believe in CAGW or who are the priests of the cult.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “those who believe in CAGW or who are the priests of the cult.”


        I note you separated them.

        Zero overlap.

        Gullible believers…. and the scam-artists.

        • Gail Combs says:

          All you have to do is look at where the High Priests of CAGW like Al Gore own property…. on the sea shore…. to know they do not believe the Bull Feces they are spewing.

          What I find incredible is even when you point that out the gullible believers STILL don’t get a clue it is all about $$$.

  61. Pingback: Report on Arctic sea ice unleashes shock waves – Mega News 24

  62. puteruzr says:

    I find it highly entertaining that the climate scientists admit to making up half the data because of errant reading on half the weatherstations.

  63. Pingback: Unspun News 170104 -

  64. Pingback: Report on Arctic sea ice unleashes shock waves | Tea Party USA

  65. Sammy4231 says:

    Alarmists are reduced to frequent bleating calls to jail skeptics. That displays the pinnacle of ignorance as to what science is. They don’t even argue it, anymore. They declare their 97% story, victory.

    I argued for evolution against Creationism on a certain website for years. I began as ignorant of the issues as could be. As of now, I understand Darwin, and the issues surrounding the debate, as well as anyone I know.
    In the middle of it, up came Popper and Falsifiability. Speculation is simply brainstorming on where to look for evidence. But, Hypothesis, Theory, and even Law require a practical, possible falsification in order to be Science. Anything else is story-telling, or pseudoscience, or dogma, theism, idiocy, lying, and ….. RACISM.

    It turns out, my last bit of study was on the concept of Polygenism, vs Darwin’s Monogenism.
    Polygenism was put forth in the early 1800s as science backing the right of white people to cast black people into generational slavery; to make money in cotton, tobacco, and sugar, among other pursuits.
    Around 1853, two guys named Knott and Glidden put out a popular book based on Dr. Samuel G. Morton’s racist work. In the forward, Louis Agassiz explained how God made all species to perfection for zones of creation. He even provided a colored map, very expensive for publishers of the day.
    In Agassiz’s Essay on Classification, he disclaims all migration except for civilized white people who invented ships; so they could rule the earth and all creatures as per The Lord, including other ‘species’ of men. This story kept his zones intact, while explaining the presence of black people surviving for generations outside their creation zone. Only whites could make that work.
    Darwin published in 1859. Lincoln’s perpetual Union won. And, Polygenists continued their (pseudo)science to back segregation. After a few decades, Grant published the same garbage in modern lingo. Nascent Hitler wrote a kind letter to Grant, declaring it his favorite book. And, Hitler forced all Christian leaders to teach Polygenism. How they managed to ignore Genesis 11, all who speak human languages descended from a single population, I can’t fathom.

    Parallel to that, Einstein did his beautiful math. But, ego in check, he declared the math unproved, and possibly wrong. He threw up three tests for it to pass, before he’d trust it. Carl Popper watched all of this from inside Germany.
    Falsifiability came from a Jew in Hitler’s Germany, who had to make some money selling a book on something, to escape story-telling. Popper’s version of science based on testing our work saved him from pseudoscientific Polygenism. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler burned Darwin’s and Haeckel’s books, and any “Monism,” German for Monogenism.

    On another subject, Christians burned witches at the stake for helping Satan use weather to ruin crops; and strike churches with lightning; and kill large numbers through sickness and plague. Those hundreds of years were brutal, because of story-telling as fact, we call pseudoscience, today.

    Climate Change has no practical, possible falsification. Any change is change. Stasis would be a change from constant change. End of stasis would be change again.

    Pseudoscience gets large numbers of people killed, often painfully, and steals lives through slavery. The Globalists want to take our money through Agenda 21; to control all natural resources on the planet; to build their Animal Farm. We’re supposed to be their proletariat in a giant Cuba. That’s a fine bit of story-telling, isn’t it?

  66. Bill Smith says:

    The fourth angel poured his bowl on the sun and it was allowed to scorch them with fire.; they were scorched by the fierce heat…Rev 16.8
    Someone just wrote that carbon-d is making forests grow faster. A Danish research institution. wrote some 20 years ago that climate change is solely due to the sun’s activities. Revelle the professor and mentor of Al Gore declared in 1988 that “we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer….”
    Al Gore’s scam about climate change netted him, they say, $100M. Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth (sic) has already been ruled by the British High Court to be a ”propaganda film” that contains multiple misstatements of fact.
    Taxes collected by some countries on climate change issues are said to have gone into the coffers of the Illuminati towards their dream of a world dictatorship. Ice is actually melting on the N. Pole due to the Earth’s wobble caused by other planets. But it is compensated by our having more ice in the Antarctic.

  67. Brian G Valentine says:

    Come on Liberals.

    Pay some more Hollywood stars to rant about AGW. You aren’t spending enough.

    Leonardo and Barbra Streisand aren’t enough.

    You need to get the message out to ordinary people put out of work to convince them how stupid they are for not believing you

  68. Kris Johanson says:

    Can someone double check my math?:
    If all (100%) of the arctic ice suddenly melted, and the resulting water spread over the ocean surfaces, the oceans would only rise about 1.4 mm!
    This is because 90% of floating ice is submerged to begin with (thus melting it isn’t the same as ADDING it), plus the density of the exposed portion (the other 10%) is less than liquid water.
    Rough calculations (please poke full of holes if necessary):
    If the arctic ice measures 4 x 10E6 square miles, and it averages 6 feet thick, that comes out to +/- 4500 cubic miles of total ice. Given that seawater is slightly less dense than fresh water (the melted ice), there should be a net gain in water volume of about 2.6% of the original ice volume. Basically, that means +/- 115 cubic miles of water would be added to the world’s oceans. Spread that amount over the 140 x 10E6 square miles of ocean, and you raise the level only +/- 0.05 inches or 1.4 millimeters.
    And that’s assuming it ALL melted.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Look at these studies of the end of the last interglacial, the Eemian. Compared to the current interglacial, the Holocene, the Eemian was 2-4°C higher in temperature, …With polar temperatures ~3–5 °C warmer than today…

      The Late Eemian Aridity Pulse (LEAP)
      High rates of sea-level rise during the last Interglacial period

      The last interglacial period, Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e, was characterized by global mean surface temperatures that were at least 2 °C warmer than present. Mean sea level stood 4–6 m higher than modern sea level with an important contribution from a reduction of the Greenland ice sheet….

      By dating fossil corals, previous studies have established that MIS-5e sea level reached an average highstand around +4 (plusminus2) m, with individual maxima up to +7 or +9 m….
      …. similar work around the Gulf of Aqaba reports terraces up to +10 m that date to 121–122 kyr (ref. 29).

      Supplement with data:
      High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period

      A highstand is the highest the seas rose during that interglacial. It is interesting that this occurred as a sudden warming ‘pulse’ at the very end of the Eemian before descending into the Wisconsin Ice Age.

      [….] Table S1. Summary of literature-based estimates concerning the timing of the MIS-5e maximum highstand interval and the possible presence of interruptions of that maximum highstand. The overall apparent age range of the maximum highstand is around 128 until
      119 kyr BP [….]

      The work shows a clear distinction of two main highstands (their phases 5.51 and 5.53) separated by a brief sea-level drop (5.52), within MIS-5e.

      Table S1. shows high stands:
      RED SEA (The area of the research paper above)
      Egyptian coast, NW Red Sea — 125-120ka
      South Sinai, N Red Sea — 125-118ka
      Eritrean coast, SW Red Sea — 125 ± 7ka one ~125 and one younger event

      BAHAMAS (The area of the research paper below)
      Bahamas — 129-120 ka
      Bahamas — 132-118ka and 130=117 ka one ~125 and one ~121

      Those highstands were just before the Wisconsin Ice Age.

      Rapid sea-level changes at the close of the last interglacial (substage 5e) recorded in Bahamian island geology

      Rapid and abrupt relative sea-level changes within the last interglacial (substage 5e) are recorded in the island geology of the tectonically stable Bahamas. From 132 to 118 ka, reef growth reached a maximum elevation near +2 m, as indicated by fossil reef elevation across the platform, whereas bioeroded notches are incised in coastal cliffs as high as +6 m. The end of the interval is characterized by voluminous eolianites exhibiting palm tree and frond impressions. It is inferred that sea level for most of the interval remained near +2 m, restraining reef growth, and that the notch at +6 m represents a rapid and brief excursion just before the close of the substage. The subsequent fall must have been rapid in order to leave the notch profile intact and mobilize windward lagoon ooids into dunes before cementation could anchor them. In order to explain the rapid rise to +6 m, glacial surging is invoked. The subsequent fall, also rapid, may be a consequence of the surge flooding high latitudes and providing enough moisture to initiate reglaciation and drawdown.

      The ClimAstrologists love to cite the +21 meter highstand from MIS-11. HOWEVER MIS-11 covered the equivalent time period starting at the beginning of the Eemain, through the entire Wisconsin Ice Age to the end of the Holocene since it is one of only two double precession interglacials. That is a VERY LONG time for ice to be subject to a warm interglacial and melting.

      If the Holocene becomes a double precession interglacial, Global Warming is not going to be the problem.
      “The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!concluded Neuman and Hearty the authors of that paper.

      This goes along with Dr Robert Brown’s observation that the climate is bistable, the greenhouse and the icehouse. If the earth’s climate hovers around the instability point you are going to get a climatic “madhouse” as the climate switches back and forth between the two stable states — Oh Joy!

      Lisieki and Raymo (Oceanography, 2005) took an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores.

      Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] {This is what NOAA uses BTW – G.C.} because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles….However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”

      So at the present the Holocene either ends and the earth goes into glaciation OR the Holocene is a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial and we get ~65,000 years of climatic “madhouse” Global Warming is the only choice Not on the table for the next ~65,000 years.

      AndyG55 and Colorado Wellington did warn you…. ?

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Please comment:
        With respect to the papers you cited above: If I can summarize our methods without butchering – 1) we determine the date of extremely old coral reefs and observe other features on the coastal cliffs of an Island, 2) we note that the water-line was once several meters higher than it is today, and that it must have moved fairly rapidly at some point to cause certain features, 3) we automatically attribute this to Greenland ice sheet melting and so forth, and finally 4) we basically back-calculate the temperatures based on that and whatever model we’re using.

        Step 3, above, seems to be a bit of a weak link in the whole process. There are many other things – other than ice melting – that could cause the sea level to rise (and then fall), aren’t there? A couple possibilities might be 1) the strata that we’re looking at could simply have risen or fallen, and 2) the ocean floor could simply have changed.
        Please comment.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Always keep in mind that to get funding AND to get into journals you MUST kiss CAGW butt.

          Actually some papers are pretty funny. They kiss butt in the Abstract and completely refute what is said in the Abstract in the body of the text. Shows that the ‘peer-review’ referees aren’t doing anything more than reading the Abstract and seeing if CAGW butt has been kissed.
          Back to the question, there is this:

          A NASA model of current surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound and the reloading of sea basins with water. Canada, Northern Europe, and Antarctica are all currently rebounding at a rate of a few millimetres per year. More water in the oceans as a result of ice sheet melting is slowly depressing sea basins. Satellites are used to observe differences over time.

          Often the study will include whether or not the area is tectonically stable like this one does.

          Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

          ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

          Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.…?

          This one, again in a tectonically stable area (not all that far from the Red Sea) agrees.
          Late Quaternary highstand deposits of the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change

          …..It has therefore been necessary to infer the ages of these sediments by a comparison of their stratigraphy and elevation with deposits known from other parts of the world. We regard this approach as valid because the southern Gulf coastline lacks evidence for significant widespread neotectonic uplift,…….
          …..Widespread evidence exists for a Holocene sea level higher than at present in the southern Arabian Gulf, indicating that it peaked at 1–2 m above present level, c. 5.5 ka bp…….

          This study shows a sea level highstand ~1 to 2 meters above the present level about ~5500 years ago.

          The study shows a sea level highstand ~ 4 meters above the present level about ~5000 years ago. With sea level oscillating since then. Not only has the sea levels have dropped since the Holocene Optimum the evidence shows that “warmer paleotemperatures were favourable for great proliferation of mollusks in the area”
          Santa Catarina Brazil is at latitude 27.2500°S and is tectonically stable according to other studies I found. — The Quaternary Geological History of the Santa Catarina Southeastern Region (Brazil) 1999

          HOWEVER in that study they ‘corrected’ their results. This is the key study showing the sea level is still rising in the WIKI sea level graph.


        • Gail Combs says:

          Santa Catarina is the dark red cross above the pack on the right. Remove it and sea level is actually falling for the last 2,000 years.

          This figure shows sea level rise since the end of the last glacial episode based on data from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. These papers collected data from various reports and adjusted them for subsequent vertical geologic motions, primarily those associated with post-glacial continental and hydroisostatic rebound. — <a commons(DOT)

          This can be substantiated with other papers.

          Over the last 2-5,000 years glaciers re-establish in the Arctic and Norway.


          Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

          For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.

          I have links to papers for Antarctica but it is tectonically unstable so it is relative sea level rise.

          Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica

          A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ∼7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ∼9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….

          A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

          The curve shows a mid-Holocene RSL highstand on Fildes Peninsula at 15.5 m above mean sea level between 8000 and 7000 cal a BP. Subsequently RSL gradually fell as a consequence of isostatic uplift in response to regional deglaciation….

          (Now you see why Andy and Colorado were laughing.)

          • Kris Johanson says:

            The Santa Catarina study (referenced above) seems pretty unimpressive to be making it the cause celebre of a Wikipedia sea-level graph.

            I mean… some guys sink (2) 30-ft test wells in a beach and conclude that the world’s oceans have risen 10-11 meters? I realize I’m not sensitive to all the nuances involved, but in other geotech-related fields this would be a joke. There’s a thousand other things that could have shaped that 30-ft of sand.

            Yes, that dark red cross on the sea-level graph looks a little too “convenient”, I agree.

            Thanks for all your feedback!

  69. HYCOM-CICE isn’t a physical dataset, it’s a simulation. The Danish government’s actual Arctic ice dataset is here:

  70. griff says:

    I note the sea ice age chart is from week 12 2016.

    Well a large chunk of that old ice melted out over the summer and most of the rest is currently exporting itself out the Fram strait to melt.

  71. griff says:

    The actual volume of arctic sea ice is definitely decreasing.

    You can see some (alarming) stats on that here:

    Jan 2017 – record low

    • AndyG55 says:

      NSIDC shows Arctic sea ice extent today as MORE than for the same day last year

      You are LYING yet again, griff.

      I bet you sleep crooked at night , too…

      .. only way you can keep your head up your a**e

      • Gail Combs says:

        Notice how Snow White ERRRRrrr Jim Hunt has disappeared? Looks like Griff is his replacement.

      • Neobiognosis says:

        “NSIDC shows Arctic sea ice extent today as MORE than for the same day last year”

        6 Jan 2016 – 12.882 million km^2
        6 Jan 2017 – 12.810 million km^2

        You might want to rethink your assertion. As of today….

        18 Jan 2016 – 13.536 million km^2
        18 Jan 2016 – 12.918 million km^2

        That is down 4.6% on the extent for last year. Ice cover is at a record low for the period since monitoring began!

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Very good,Neo.

          However he was correct on January 6…….

          However it is higher NOW than most of the Holocene period. You like Griff don’t look at the whole picture.

          • Neobiognosis says:

            er….no, he wasn’t. The ice has been lower each day this year than any year previously. I know that. You do not troll!

          • Neobiognosis says:

            No, he wasn’t. The ice has been lower each day this year than any year previously. I know that. You do not troll!

          • Neobiognosis says:

            The ice has been lower each day this year than any year previously. I know that. You do not troll!

          • RAH says:

            Here we go again. Friggin sea ice. Comparing one, two, or a few, or even 20 years, extent, area, or volume, as if that is a true indication of climate change. Silly shit!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “The ice has been lower each day this year than any year previously”

            That is a MONUMENTAL LIE.

            It is known that Arctic sea ice was MUCH lower during the first 3/4 of the Holocene

            Its only lower than the EXTREME extent of the Little Ice Age

            1979 was actually an EXTREME in itself, not that much below the EXTREME extent of the LIA.
            This is CLEARLY SHOWN by the Icelandic sea ice index

            A little HISTORY would help you not making a FOOL of yourself.

            You are either IGNORANT

            or a troll.

            Which is it ???????

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You do not troll”

            NO.. but YOU do !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “The ice has been lower each day this year than any year previously”

            Again. a LIE or badly informed

            5th Jan

            2016… 12.889
            2017… 12.932

            be gone, worthless troll

          • AndyG55 says:

            Also 4th Jan

            2016… 12.873

            2017… 12.956

            Lying or misinformed

            Which is it, little troll. ? !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Is that your nose… or are you just a d**kh**d.?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I know that. ”

            You have just proven you KNOW NOTHING !

            LYING or just IGNORANT !!

            Your call

            Which is it ????

        • AndyG55 says:

          At the time I typed it.. it was.

          Stick your crap elsewhere.

      • Neobiognosis says:

        2016 Arctic sea ice extent 4th 12.787
        2017 12.641

        2016 Arctic sea ice extent 5th 12.818
        2017 12.736

        NSIDC data!

        You evidently lead a troubled life judging by you need to pour invective. I do hope someone somehow loves you. It is the one thing you seem very short of.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Below is a direct copy from download.

          You are either a LYING PRICK or GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.

          Or BOTH.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Given the link, EVERYONE can check and see that you are a LYING, worthless, little troll.

          • Neobiognosis says:

            You really are a total knob head. That aside, the data I showed you was the total sea ice extent with at least 15% of sea ice cover.

            But seeing as how you seem so sexually aroused by the University of Colorado data set, I’ll give you another from your own source.


            2016001 13093409.74 2017001 12856356.4
            2016002 13356247.72 2017002 12874780.34
            2016003 13471640.94 2017003 12976548.15
            2016004 13555170.54 2017004 13059734.9
            2016005 13799990.36 2017005 13184053.34

            This is the total northern hemisphere sea ice.

            Still shows the same thing, less this year than last.

            I’m not lying. You need to understand the extent to which the Dunning Kruger effect is crippling you, and go see your mother and ask her for a hug. She may even wash the stains from your underpants jerkoffboy.

  72. Pingback: "Vanishing" Arctic Sea Ice Same Thickness As 1940 - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok

  73. RAH says:

    Concerning the Grizzly-Polar bear hybrid discussed earlier. Here is the bear that was shown on the NatGeo program.

    Surprisingly for once, they didn’t blame it on climate change. The thing is that the Canadian Wildlife service inspects every pelt and certain other parts of every bear taken under a license. Any bear parts inspected that bring into question if the species taken is not that permitted results in Canadian authorities doing DNA testing.

    If a hunter takes a species of bear other than that for which they have a tag they are fined but worse yet it is a black mark on their record that may result in them not being given permits in other places for the big game they wish to hunt. So these big game hunters that pay the exorbitant expenses for the tag and guide and transport take their reputations very seriously. In addition to the expense of the hunt most of these people have such kills mounted.

    In this case the Canadian authorities eventually returned the pelt and parts (feet and skull) after DNA testing marked it down as a legitimate kill even though it was a hybrid. The hunter made the shot at 300 yards and there was no way from that distance he could possibly tell it was a very rare hybrid.

    A few miles from where I live is the old HQ Building of IMI (Irving Materials Inc.). The founder of what became the largest Ready Mix concrete and aggregate producer in Indiana was “Skunk” Irving. Skunk was a prolific Big Game hunter. The old HQ building for the company is located at NW corner of the intersection of SR 9 and SR 234 in the small town of Eden, IN. The largest part of the building is the foyer and that is where Skunk’s trophies are displayed, including a polar bear. When one passes the place on Hwy 9 they can see some of the trophies from the road through the glass front.

    Skunk established a exotic animal and wildlife refuge on the expansive grounds around his home not far from there. The stools for the bar in his home were the stuffed legs of an African Elephant. He could look out the windows of his home and see his herds of Zebra plus Elk and many other animals. Even a wart hog or two. He even had a huge bird house. He provided free tours of the place for school kids. His sons eventually closed up the refuge after Skunk passed away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *