Global cooling: Arctic ice GROWING

Global cooling: Arctic ice GROWING

Time ice age 1977Remember Al Gore’s 2006 “An Convenient Truth?” phony documentary? It showed Arctic ice melting and crashing into the ocean. It garnered Al an Academy Award, a Nobel Peace Prize — and greatly increased his own personal wealth.

It was part of the “global warming” hysteria of the day, including California’s passage of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which has been shutting down our “dirty” industries.

This just in from the London Telegraph:

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

In a rebound from 2012’s record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

Appropriately, the Orwellian BBC was the model for the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.

ab32Yet Gov. Jerry Brown keeps insisting that global warning is threatening us:

“If you take a look at Google and type in ‘global warming news,’ I venture to say on most days in the news, 20 to 30 percent, if not more, of the news, will be by climate deniers or skeptics, whatever you want to call them,” Brown said at a conference with climate scientists at NASA’s Ames Research Center. “Everything these guys are saying either is not true, not relevant or totally distorted — or it’s not important.”

The Democratic governor, who has made climate change a focus of his administration, compared interest in the event to recent news that the Bay Area will host football’s Super Bowl in 2016.

“I mean, compared to getting the 50th Super Bowl, this stuff is silly,” Brown said. “It’s just a bunch of scientists talking. What really counts is the stuff you’re going to read on the front page tomorrow. You’re not going to hear about this. It’s not allowed, because this is not news. News is something else. This may be true, it may be fundamentally important, but it’s not news and therefore it cannot be printed in the American press.”

That was in May. Well, here it is — “tomorrow,” September 2013 — and the news is global cooling.

The whole “global warming”/”climate change” scam was just to increase the power of the government and the wealth of people like Gore.

Now it’s becoming obvious that the opposite is happening. Turn on that electric blanket.


Write a comment
  1. us citizen
    us citizen 9 September, 2013, 15:16

    Ive been saying this for years!!! Its a CYCLE…….ones that we have had before and it is just an excuse by the govt to tax and raise prices.

    Reply this comment
  2. loufca
    loufca 9 September, 2013, 18:37

    OOHHH Say it ain’t so Al….

    Reply this comment
  3. Non union nurse
    Non union nurse 9 September, 2013, 18:59

    I’m old enough to remember when Time magazine was fear-mongering the coming ice age; circa 1975.

    Reply this comment
  4. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 9 September, 2013, 19:45

    Since the arctic ice level last year at this time was at a record low, an increase of 60% over that level is welcome news. The arctic ice level is still well below (one-third) the the three-decade average from 1981 through 2010, so one year of improvement from record low levels hardly disproves stacks of scientific measurements or heralds the approach of a new ice age.

    Reply this comment
    • Dyspeptic
      Dyspeptic 10 September, 2013, 11:31

      “one year of improvement from record low levels hardly disproves stacks of scientific measurements or heralds the approach of a new ice age.”

      Perhaps, but it does show that climate models and the predictions of climate alarmists can’t be trusted. Where are those dramatic increases in sea level and more frequent hurricanes we were promised? Where is the 5 degrees centigrade increase in global surface temps. that models predicted 20 years ago? Why haven’t we seen increases in upper atmosphere temps where the greenhouse effect is most prominent? Why is it that CO2 concentrations increase AFTER warming increases and not before? Why all this fuss about a gas which is only .004% of the atmosphere? The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. The primary sources of atmospheric CO2 are: 1) The ocean. 2) volcanic activity. 3) decomposition of organic biomass. Human activity is a minor contributor.

      AGW proponents are mostly left wing political hacks, ideologues or money grubbing, opportunistic grant seekers. The IPCC is full of such frauds.

      The whole Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Instability Scare is just a giant con job. Anyone who thinks it’s just a coincidence that the solutions to this imaginary problem all involve massive increases in government control and higher taxes is a complete fool.

      Reply this comment
  5. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 9 September, 2013, 19:59

    Why do doomers look under rocks day/night looking for negatives in America?


    Reply this comment
  6. Hondo
    Hondo 10 September, 2013, 07:57

    Its the left, you, who say the earth is about to catch fire and explode into outer space. Talk about doomers.

    Reply this comment
  7. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 11 September, 2013, 06:56

    When did science become a left/right thing? Seems like all the Nascar/dummies ignore science and the world wide scientific consensus that global warming is real—–odd…..One year of ice growth after 15 of record loss=let’s party!


    Reply this comment
  8. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 11 September, 2013, 09:11

    97% of the world’s climate science community agrees with our current understanding of global warming theory, but you’d rather accept the unsupported conclusions of some nutjob like “Lord Monckton”?

    When only 3% of people who actually have knowledge about a subject agree with your conclusion, it is you and the 3% who need to show all of us how the current approach is incorrect and provide some valid and replicable measurements that support your own conclusions. That hasn’t happened, John.

    Reply this comment
    • John Seiler
      John Seiler Author 11 September, 2013, 10:11

      But, as I indicated in the links to the Climategate 1.0 and Climategate 2.0 scandals, the numbers all are rigged by scientists getting tax subsidies. If 97% of mathematicians are paid with our tax money to say 2+2=5, that doesn’t make it so.

      Reply this comment
    • daveburton
      daveburton 11 November, 2017, 04:10

      The “97% consensus” meme is an outrageous lie.

      An article by Prof. Peter Doran in 2009 was the first to claim a “97% consensus” on climate science. Here’s what he did.

      FIRST, Dr. Doran wrote just two “opinion” questions for his survey, both of which were “gimmies,” designed to elicit the answers he wanted. (There were also some demographic & background questions.)

      The survey PRETENDED to be an attempt to learn about scientists’ opinions, but it wasn’t. Neither question was designed to actually learn anything about scientists’ opinions. Both of the questions were so uncontroversial that even I, and most other skeptics of climate alarmism (a/k/a “climate realists” or “lukewarmers”) would have given the answers he wanted.

      SECOND, Doran had his graduate student send the survey to over 10,000 geophysical scientists, but ONLY to people working in academia or government — known bastions of left-of-center politics. Scientists working in private industry, who tend to be more conservative, were not surveyed. That biased the sample, because the climate debate is highly politicized: most conservatives “lean skeptical” and most liberals “lean alarmist” in the climate debate.

      They got 3,146 responses.

      THIRD, to calculate his supposed “consensus” Prof. Doran excluded all but the most biased respondents: the most specialized specialists in climate science.

      That’s a massive, fundamental blunder. That’s like asking ONLY homeopaths about the efficacy of homeopathy, rather than the broader medical community. It’s like asking ONLY people working on cold fusion about whether cold fusion works, rather than asking all physicists.

      That process excluded over 97% of the geophysical scientists who answered the survey! Only 79 were left.

      That’s right: he pruned 3,146 responses down to just 79.

      But even that didn’t get his desired “consensus” figure up to 97%. So,

      FOURTH, to calculate his final “97.4%” result, Doran EXCLUDED respondents who gave one of the “skeptical” answers to the first of his two questions.

      I’m not kidding, he really did.

      The first “gimme” question was:

      “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

      (I would have said “risen.”)

      Those who answered “remained relatively constant” were not asked the 2nd question, and THEY WERE NOT COUNTED when calculating his percentage consensus.

      That left him with just 77 out of 3,146 responses. He used only those 77 for the “97.4%” calculation.

      The second question was:

      “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

      Well, of course it is! That encompasses both GHG-driven warming and particulate/aerosol-driven cooling. It could also be understood to include Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

      Since just about everyone acknowledges at least one of those effects, I would have expected nearly everyone to answer “yes” to this question. Yet 2 of 77 apparently did not.

      It is unfortunate that Doran and his graduate student didn’t ask an actual, legitimate question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like, “Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?” or (paraphrasing President Obama) “Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”

      Of course, the reason he didn’t ask “real” questions like that his survey was a scam: Its purpose was NOT to discover anything, it was to support a propaganda talking point.

      BTW, I bought his graduate student’s thesis project report, so if you (or anyone else) have any questions about it let me know. My contact info can be found on my web site.

      You can find much more information about the various surveys of scientific opinion on climate change, including source references for everything I’ve written here, on this web page:

      Reply this comment
  9. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 12 September, 2013, 10:17

    Keep up John

    standby for more on #2…

    Denial John– more than a river…

    Reply this comment
    • daveburton
      daveburton 11 November, 2017, 04:16

      That’s the spin of an embarrassed, defensive climate activist.

      Here’s what the Institute of Physics said:

      “The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.”

      Note that the IOP’s assessment is not based on ideology. In fact, it is in spite of the fact that the IOP has long been in the climate alarmist camp.

      Here’s the reaction of another longtime climate alarmist, physicist Richard Muller:

      Muller sounds like a cheated-on spouse. He says he’s “infuriated” by Michael Mann’s fraud. He says Mann’s team is the group he “trusted the most.”

      To my knowledge, the most comprehensive analysis of the Climategate revelations was this one:

      You may read the emails yourself, here:

      Reply this comment
    • John Seiler
      John Seiler Author 12 September, 2013, 11:38

      Not really. That piece even quoted Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office: ““I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

      It’s simple. As in Watergate: Follow the money. The millions, as in Al Gore’s fortune, are from promoting “global warming.” Refuting it doesn’t get you much. I certainly don’t get anything from it.

      Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

The Nunez-Schwarzenegger Legacy

Katy Grimes: Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger might finally have a legacy, but it isn’t what he had hoped for and

Liberal Republican Romney loses

8:21 pm, Nov. 6, 2012 By John Seiler The networks are calling the Obama victory, which I’ve been predicting for

Gadfly Radio broadcasts perspective on Anaheim riots, state schools

July 25, 2012 By John Seiler Check out Gadfly Radio’s latest broadcast. Featured first is Gustavo Arellano, ace reporter for