More Ice In Svalbard Than A Century Ago

Climate alarmists believe the ice in the Arctic is gone, and keep getting stuck in it.

Ship with Climate Change Warriors caught in ice, Warriors evacuated – Maritime Bulletin

The last clear day at Svalbard was August 25, and much of the island was surrounded by ice.

EOSDIS Worldview

But in 1922, no ice formed around Svalbard all winter.

Link

Early this summer, winds pushed the ice from the Alaska side to the Svalbard Side.

May 1        June 21

The Alaska coast is ice-free almost every summer, but climate alarmists never miss an opportunity to misinform the public. And of course no mention of the unusually large amount of ice around Svalbard.

In 1971, during the ice age scare, ice was also hundreds of km away from the Alaska coast.

1971

If Google shut down fake news, their Google News site would be almost empty.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to More Ice In Svalbard Than A Century Ago

  1. Gummans Gubbe says:

    Remember Fridtjof Nansen and his Fram expedition in 1893. It was an attempt to drift over the north pole in a ship. When he realized he went to far south, he and Johansen left the ship in 1895 trying to walk to the north pole. They had to turn around due to slow progress and reached Franz Josef Land in 1896.

    When Ausland repeated the trip southward from the ice in 2007 he met less open water than Nansen in 1895.

  2. Lasse says:

    Marin traffic show very little traffic north of Svalbard and in the NW passage.
    https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-117.7/centery:69.2/zoom:4

  3. Noel Herron says:

    Class! Alarmist stuck in the ice that was not supposed to be there! No photos I suppose of them being airlifted out , that would make a great meme!

    • Stewart Pid says:

      There were airlift photos on one site that I saw about 4 days ago but it may have been a stock photo and not the Malmo rescue … try googling etc for a photo.

      TONY your latest sea ice post is like cat nip for the Grifftard …. griffnip … he will come shortly to eductate us all with words of wisdom from the guardian ;-)

  4. Robertv says:

    It is easy to deceive a misinform public. That’s why they have to and control the school system, the press and most politicians.

  5. Bob says:

    Zubov’s “Arctic Ice” documented shipping lanes open in all four directions south in the 1930’s.
    Mr. Heller, where did you get the above map?

  6. cotwome says:

    Svalbard shown on a portion of 1599 map of Arctic exploration by Willem Barentsz. Ice free to the north west.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Barentsz_arctic_map.jpg

  7. Mohatdebos says:

    I tried googling MS MALMO. Not a single report. I guess MSM only “communicate” events consistent with their climate change message.

  8. MGJ says:

    It sounds like a petty cool holiday to me. Take an arctic cruise while infuriating the rest of the passengers with facts (‘hate facts’ to use their jargon) then get a free helicopter ride home, while laughing and shouting ‘told you so!’ at fellow travellers.

  9. spike55 says:

    One of TH’s other newspaper articles.

    “And last WINTER the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzenbergen.”

    https://i.postimg.cc/Dz5LR1xs/Arctic-1922.gif

  10. Caleb Shaw says:

    Tony,

    You can also work on a headline, “More Ice In Svalbard Than In 1596.” 1596 was when Willem Barentzs “discovered” Svalbard (the Vikings likely knew it was there.) During his trip he sailed around the northwest tip at least to Raudfjorden, which is on the the north coast. This occurred on June 20. Such a trip, in a wooden craft, might have been possible June 20, 2018 but not June 20, 2019.

    As soon as the Dutch knew Svalbard was there they assembled a national fleet of whaling ships with a commissioner and began to exploit the waters. Therefore we have records that go way back to the early 1600’s. The ice comes and the ice goes.

    Now we have satellites and airplanes and a far better idea whether the ice is coming or going. For that reason I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the MS Malmo went plowing into the thick ice east of Svalbard. They must have been cruising for a bruising.

  11. Jim Hunt says:

    I just thought I’d pop in here to point out the Maritime Bulletin article that Tony reproduces above is a load of old baloney. In the words of one of the “participants”:

    “We are a group of middle aged Norwegians following the route of the Ahlmann expedition of 1931.”

    For chapter and verse please see:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/09/ship-of-fools-iii-escapes-arctic-sea-ice/

    • Gator says:

      Still begging for visitors? LOL

      Sorry Genocide Jim, only poor brown people haters worry about ice. Nobody worth a crap places ice over human life.

      These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

      The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

      And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Wrong again Gator,

        I’m merely endeavouring to point out to anyone who might be interested that Tony is repeating errors in the Maritime News article he quotes which were corrected long before he published his version, albeit not by Maritime News and the thousands of other sites that have been regurgitating that garbage!

        • Gator says:

          Why do you care Jim? What difference does it make? Who does it serve? Poor brown people? Or your agenda?

          Just why do you hate poor brown people Genocide Jim?

          • Jim Hunt says:

            It serves “the truth” Gator!

            An alien concept in these parts perhaps?

          • Gator says:

            No Jim, it doesn’t. The truth is there is no emergency in the Arctic. But there are millions of poor brown people needlessly starving annually.

            These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

            The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

            And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

            http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

            How can you lend your voice to alarmism for ice that is doing just fine, when millions of poor brown people need our governments to stop wasting billions on something which they cannot effect, when we could use that money to save millions of lives right now.

            Jim, you argue against allocating funds to save millions of humans while bleating on about ice that has recovered from the Holocene heat. You have chosen. Ice or human life? You have chosen ice, over and over and over again. We have had this conversation for years now.

            So again Genocide Jim, just why do you hate poor brown people?

          • spike55 says:

            Poor Jimbo the slimebag clown

            About the same as last year and the decade or so before.

            1922 no sea ice around the Spitzeberg even in winter.. WOW

            Current extent FAR MORE than for the all but a few hundred year in the last 10,000 years

            You really are WHINGING LOSER, Jimbo the clown-troll..

            Hilarious watching you in DEEP DENIAL of the facts. :-)

    • Rah says:

      What is “a bunch of baloney” is believing that fluctuations of sea ice year to year is a viable indicator of climate and establishing a blog based on that premise.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Wrong again Rah,

        Assuming you’re referring to the blog which is mine, the premise on which it was established is clearly explained on the “About” page:

        On Sunday September 8th 2013 the Mail on Sunday (and the Mail Online) published an article about Arctic sea ice which we feel was “economical with the truth”. According to the Mail:

        “A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.”

        Here we set out to put the record straight.

        David Rose was spouting a bunch of baloney in the Fail on Sunday back then, and so is Tony above.

        • rah says:

          Nit picking over sea ice extent year to year as if it is a valid indicator of climate is just silly and for some on both sides of the climate change argument it seems to approach being a psychosis. One they wish to project on everyone. Year after year after year for about three decades now I have seen the same crap. An itch that no matter how much they scratch it never goes away that I suspect is just as irritating to rational people interested in climate and weather as their dog having fleas.

          Year after year we have been subjected to memes of climate doom based on sea ice extent and projections by “scientists”. And year after year our lives go on with nobody but the relatively miniscule number of people that work or live in the Arctic being able to point to how sea ice extent being up or down relative to puny timescale means being offered has effected their lives in any meaningful way.

          The hype and obsession changes no ones minds. “Climate Change” remains at or very near the bottom of the list of concerns for everyday people getting on with their lives. Yet year after year we see the same cast worrying the same old tired Artic sea ice bone. It’s enough to make this truck driver pray for the AMO to hurry up and go negative and relegate the likes of your blog to the trash heap.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Even’ Rah (UTC),

            You subscribe to Javier’s theory then?

            Does Tony too?

          • Rah says:

            I subscribe to common sense and what I’ve learned and seen over the years. I didn’t need anyone else to come to my conclusions and form my opinion. The sky is not falling because of the current state of Arctic sea ice nor is it evidence it’s about to.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Jim,

            You know you have doubts. We do not. Disillusionment removes all doubt. Painful, it was. Eternally thankful, I am.

            You know you have doubts.

            ;-)

          • KevinPaul says:

            Well said rah.
            I’m coming to think this whole climate circus is one big diversion to occupy us while we are quietly robbed of everything we hold dear.

          • spike55 says:

            Poor Jimbo the runt.

            NATURAL decline from the extreme highs of the LIA and late 1970s has levelled out at extents FAR HIGHER than for most of the last 10,000 years.

            So sadly PATHETIC to see you going into hysterical moronic despair over minor variability.

            But its all you have, isn’t it Jimbo, childish chicken-little panic.

            Go PANIC elsewhere, ignorant twerp.

            You won’t be able to troll mindless

  12. Phil. says:

    In 1971, during the ice age scare, ice was also hundreds of km away from the Alaska coast.

    Any evidence for this statement?

    • Jim Hunt says:

      “No answer!” was the stern reply?

      • Gator says:

        Just like when I ask you why you hate poor brown people.

        Crickets…

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Alternatively I don’t hate poor brown people?

          When did you stop beating your wife Gator?

          • Gator says:

            I’m not married. Never have been.

            Did you hit your head again? We are discussing a real existential threat, that kills millions annually.

            These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

            The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

            And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

            http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

            Why would you keep bleating on about meaningless ice, and on the side of alarmism, after knowing the massive human suffering it causes?

            Why do you hate poor brown people Genocide Jim?

          • Disillusioned says:

            Why, Jim?

    • Andy says:

      I don’t believe that map Tony has linked to is factually correct on where it shows ice. it is just a way to give information across, but Tony uses that as proof where the ice is.

      The reason I say that is because it shows Iceland covered in ice, but if it was summer it would not be, just the glaciers.

      Andy

      • Gator says:

        Andy Andy, WTF are you blathering about now?

      • Phil. says:

        It claims to show the ‘Limit of multi-year ice’ off the Alaskan coast, nothing else.

        • spike55 says:

          Poor Arctic sea ice worriers .. One big PHAILURE…

          About the same as last year and the decade or so before.

          1922 no sea ice around the Spitzeberg even in winter.. WOW

          Current extent FAR MORE than for the all but a few hundred year in the last 10,000 years

          They really are a BUNCH OF WHINGING LOSERS.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Hello again Spike,

            You still have a most elegant and eloquent turn of phrase!

            What “Arctic sea ice warriors” are you blathering on about?

          • spike55 says:

            Yep , there is Jimbo the whinging loser.

            Witless LIAR extraordinaire.

            About the same as last year and the decade or so before.

            1922 no sea ice around the Spitzenberg even in winter.. WOW

            Current extent FAR MORE than for the all but a few hundred year in the last 10,000 years

            You KNOW the facts but are too cowardly to state them.

    • Gator says:

      Any evidence against it?

      Why do you care? Who does your nitpicking serve Phail? Does it serve the tens of thousands who will starve to death today? Or does it serve Big Brother Doomers?

      Why do you hate poor brown people?

      • Andy says:

        I said the evidence in the last sentence of my post. That map that Tony puts up as “evidence” is not an actual map of the ice extent a summer of 1971. It is a diagram to explain to the readers about the Arctic. and the ice is just there as artistic licence.

        This is shown because the artist has put Iceland has being covered in ice, when in summer it is not. Only the glaciers are.

        But Tony keeps using it to prove a point, when it does nothing of the sort.

        I don’t know why you keep writing that last sentence, as I don’t understand what you are trying to say or imply to be honest? Perhaps because it is lacking any context……. ???????????

        Where has Spudbrain55 got to buy the way? Time travel back to the holocene? That would really make his day :)

        Andy

        • Gator says:

          I said the evidence in the last sentence of my post.

          No, you did not. So once again Andy Andy, WTF are you talking about? I was addressing Phail. Are you drunk already, today?

          I don’t know why you keep writing that last sentence.

          Of course you don’t understand Andy Andy, because you purposely avoid thinking about what I am saying.

          Let’s see just how f@cking stupid you are…

          These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

          The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

          And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

          I am still waiting for you, Phail and Ms Griff to explain why, in your opinion, poor brown people are so very expendable.

          (Maybe think about sobering up before you reply again)

          • Andy says:

            I’ve explained it you twice now. I’ll do it a third time so it might finally sink in.

            Tony put a map up showing that in 1971 ice was far off the Alaskan coast. Agree?

            He has put a link in, you can follow hyperlinks?

            My point is that this map, which he has used before to show ice extent in 1971, does not show the ice extent in 1971. Do you think it does?

            Yes or no?

            If you say yes I’ll then explain to you, again why it does not and then we can both agree I was correct.

            I’m always prepared to put time in to help other people understanding simple things.

            Andy

          • Gator says:

            Still drunk?

            Why do you hate poor brown people Andy Andy?

      • Phil. says:

        Any evidence against it?

        Why do you care? Who does your nitpicking serve Phail?
        I prefer the truth.

        Does it serve the tens of thousands who will starve to death today?

        Now I understand, you’re from a different planet, not the case on Earth.

        Why do you hate poor brown people?

        I don’t.

        • Gator says:

          Phail, you cannot campaign against poor brown people, and not hate them. I have provided ample evidence that supporting alarmism is murder. You can be a denier all you want, but we know what you really are.

          You also cannot claim to be a champion of truth, when you ignore all of the alarmist lies.

          You are a leftist zealot who hates poor brown people so very much, that you are willing to sacrifice millions annually for your socialist agenda.

          You are a liar and an accessory to murder.

        • Gator says:

          And I might add, this is not just my opinion. Alarmists are liars and killers. And you defend them, Phail.

          In a recent interview with the online Berliner Zeitung (BZ) here, economist Björn Lomborg said that 16-year old Greta Thunberg’s demands “will put people in danger”.
          Greta, the Swedish teenage activist is calling for radical cuts in CO2 emissions – on a scale that would have profound impacts on the world’s market system.

          Moreover, Lomborg calls the demands immoral.

          Lomborg says it would be far wiser to invest money in bringing the world’s poor out of grinding poverty rather than to try to mitigate climate change.

          Fear based on 30 years of lies and exaggerations
          “Rich countries that tell poor countries not to use fossil energy for the benefit of the environment are acting immorally,” Lomborg told the BZ.

          Lomborg also sharply criticized Thunberg, telling BILD news daily: “Greta Thunberg fears the end of the world due to climate change. This fear is the result of three decades of alarmist rhetoric based on exaggerations and lies.”

          €43 billion for 0.00001°C of temperature reduction yearly

          Lomborg also called Germany’s “Energiewende” – transition to green energies – “the best example of a failed climate policy” which has proven to be “incredibly costly and ineffective.”

          “Global warming will be reduced by 0.001 degrees at most by 2100 for 43 billion euros a year,” he told the BZ. Lomborg blames the adults for panicking Ms Thunberg and using her “to push through an agenda that costs trillions but brings almost no benefits.”

          Rather, for the trillions we will likely get us far graver problems. What a deal.

          So, why do you hate poor brown people Phail?

  13. Andy says:

    This has to be the ultimate cherry picking.

    Ignores 90% of the circle and finds the 10% which fits the narrative.

    Rather than picking one small region, look at them all.

    https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_plots

    Where ice is still present currently ice extent is average or lower than average.

    Andy

    • rah says:

      And as a practical matter what does that mean? What consequence is it to the 99% of the population of this earth that does not live or work in the Arctic circle? Why is the amount and location of sea ice in the Arctic important to you since it remains well within the bounds of natural variability and we living in the temperate zone in the NH see absolutely no effect on our daily lives?

      • Andy says:

        Ask Tony, he is the one who posted it on his blog. Perhaps you think he should not be posting about Arctic sea ice?

        Why are you bothering reading them and replying if it does not matter? Just leave it to people like Tony and I who think it is interesting and worth discussing !

        Bye

        Andy

        • Rah says:

          Exactly the nonanswer I expected.

        • Gator says:

          I doubt very seriously that Tony would waste time writing about Arctic ice if there were no climate alarmism. If everyone agreed that we have bigger fish to fry, Arctic ice posts here would likely be near nonexistent.

          And if melting Arctic ice was not being used to advance leftist agendas, I doubt we would have ever heard from Griff, Andy Andy, or Phail.

          What speaks volumes in all this political mess is Lomborg’s presentation, and the denial of those facts by those who hate poor brown people.

    • Gator says:

      Actually it is far above the average of the last 9000 years.

      What was it you said about cherrypicking Andy Andy?

    • spike55 says:

      Poor Arctic sea ice worriers

      About the same as last year and the decade or so before.

      1922 no sea ice around the Spitzeberg even in winter.. WOW

      Current extent FAR MORE than for the all but a few hundred year in the last 10,000 years

      They really are a BUNCH OF WHINGING LOSERS.

      • Andy says:

        “They really are a BUNCH OF WHINGING LOSERS.”

        Says the only person whinging on here… lol, the irony.

        Andy

        PS Welcome back, we had thought you had got a time machine back to the Holocene

    • KevinPaul says:

      Such fixation over something too ephemeral to be a canary of anything.
      As Sophie Scholl said on the day of her execution “The sun still shines…..”

  14. Rah says:

    We’re all in the Holocene Epoch Andy.

    • Gator says:

      Andy Andy thinks it’s the Andyocene, and for him that means killing off poor brown people. We still don’t have an answer as to why he, Ms Griff, and Genocide Jim hate them so very much. I’ve tried to get an answer, but they are either pretending not to know what I am talking about, or are they so extremely stupid as to not understand the consequences of their own actions.

    • Andy says:

      Especially one person RAH, who’s in it every single thread about current ice conditions….

      Andy

      • rah says:

        Nope. Not! Plenty of arctic ice threads at this blog I have not commented on. But this time when I saw Tony once again smoked some of the usual bone heads out of the woodwork I couldn’t help but point out how little their arguments actually mean to those of us that live in the real practical world. And your non answer to my question of why anyone should believe a damned thing about Arctic sea ice conditions and their impact on the average persons lives that is claimed when we have been fed one proven hyperbolic lie after another makes it clear who lacks the candor to admit they’ve got NOTHING of consequence to offer.

        Now go on back to your silly obsession about something that has had no effect on the lives of the average person except to expose to them who the liars about climate change really are.

  15. Disillusioned says:

    As the predictions by the ‘experts’ fall each year, it is looking more and more like we will never get to see an ice-free Arctic in our lifetimes.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.