longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:37am:


So you are saying that people who say that the science on the deleterious effects on the the body of smoking is pretty much settled are extremists?

We cannot say with certainty that this is the case but any reputable scientist in the appropriate field will say it is the most likely scenario.

Should we wait until we have absolute certainty on this issue before we act?

Interestingly Fred Singer, now an esteemed "Climate Scientist" argued this before a Senate Committee in the US on behalf of big tobacco, now he is arguing the do-nothing case for the energy producers. I wonder what his bank account looks like.  

Also, weren't you until recently proclaiming the Climate Change was crap? What has softened your view (seeing how people who say such things are now considered extremists)?

I am still a little confused as to how 97% of the world's climate scientists can argue that the best available evidence supports AGW and the people that listen to them are considered extremists.

Waiting for 100% certainty on something like this before we act would appear to me to be the extreme position, no?

Rate of Arctic Ice Melt each Day now Equals the Size of West Virginia
Written by Dr. Tim Ball, guest post | June 04 2011

Arctic Ice pack is melting at approximately 54,000 square kilometers a day as the world warms. It’s an area almost equal to the State of West Virginia and that is in just one day.

Why haven’t we seen this headline? Possibly because when journalists check it’s the average rate of summer melt as the ice decreases from winter maximum of 14 million square km2 in April toward a minimum of 4.5 million km2 in September. Few people know this much ice melts every summer, but they don’t know a similar amount of ice forms every winter.

Accurate measures of Arctic ice began in 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Nimbus-7 satellite. It took a couple of years to sort out the data so the data set properly begins in 1980. Over that time the winter extent has not varied much, but until the last few years the summer extent was declining. It reached a minimum in September 2005.

This triggered scary headlines. BBC correspondent Richard Black said “Arctic ice ‘disappearing quickly.” Black had a history of perpetuating the alarmism promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its major authors at the Climatic research Unit (CRU). He was the gang’s contact, as a 12 October 2009 email from Michael Mann notes. It is part of the discussion about Kevin Trenberth’s infamous comment. “The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.”

They were upset about an article by BBC employee Paul Hudson wondering why cold temperatures were occurring globally. Mann wrote, “extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy (Paul Hudson) was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?”

Many people recognized actions and behaviors outside the normal; few understood the extent of deception and manipulation. Mann’s comments may be inferred to indicate there’s the initial deception built in to the entire process of climate science practiced by the IPCC and CRU. Then there were deliberate counterattacks with more deception and misleading information, orchestrated through RealClimate.


Compliant media amplified and distorted, government departments were complicit, as were the multitude of researchers receiving government funding to prove the hypothesis. Most were ignorant of the facts or the historical context of melting ice, sea level rise or most other natural phenomenon.

Results of ice extent in 2005 created more sensational speculations. Champion alarmist Seth Borenstein headlined in 2007, “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years.” Borenstein adds credibility by quoting NASA scientist Jay Zwally. "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." James Hansen, identified as, “the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global warming” says we have hit a “tipping point”. The story is without balance. Not a single dissenting opinion is provided.

Borenstein’s sensationalism was matched by BBC reporter Jonathan Amos under his headline “ Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013.” He quotes Naval Postgraduate School Professor, Wieslaw Maslowski. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Maybe Borenstein and Amos should ask the scientists about their predictions. How and why were they so wrong?
Claims that an area the size of West Virginia melted today is accurate but out of historical context. Similarly, they took the trend from 1980 out of context. They assumed the decrease in summer ice extent would continue. Maslowski acknowledged they took the maximum decrease they could determine. It is terrible science and completely indefensible. What was the ice extent in the 1930s when it was warmer than today? What happened during the Medieval Warm Period? Average rate of daily summer melt is an area the size of West Virginia. The world is warming because it is summer. The headline is only sensational if you don’t know the facts or the context and that, combined with natural fears, is what they exploit.

Editor's note: Professor Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment. He is also a co-author of Slaying the Sky Dragon. You can read more about him at his website.

The IPCC certaily is up to no good.  Could it be Money and Power behind their flawed assertions on climate change ?




http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html

Maeve wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:


You can read even more about him here.

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:


If you had the capacity of comprehension and the ability to read, reason and think you would know that I did not say that at all. IN fact as the OP says - which you read but did not understand - it is seemingly impossible to occupy anything by one or other extremist position. All you have done is prove my point that no matter how dumb or bright you are, the two extremist positions are all that you are permitted to hold.

I belive that humans effect climate. I however beleive that that effect does not move our climate outside of its normal range of variability. Ive said that before but where would you place me in the debate then since? A rational view would be that I belong in NEITHER but rather in the middle somewhere. But that is not how you view it. You want the polarised debate and the extremist position.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:14pm:



Maybe - but it will likely become largely-redundant when the NEXT GREAT DEPRESSION hits...

Not only will production and 'growth' come to a grinding halt - but the debate that we have to have will then begin in earnest, i.e. UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM is the next GREAT DEBATE!

More like the MASS DEBATE. The denialosphere is just one great big circle jerk that has nothing to do with reality.