The Annual Arctic Sea Ice Drama Begins

Wed, 2011-07-27 09:33Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Annual Arctic Sea Ice Drama Begins

In my last post, I discussed how the increasing risk of devastating heat waves—unlike the worsening of tornadoes—is definitely a phenomenon we can link to global warming. And now, as summer plods on, it’s time to begin paying attention to another one: the continuing decline of Arctic sea ice.

The extent of ice covering the Arctic has been declining for decades, and reached a record low in September of 2007, nearly 40 percent below its long term average. This wasn’t solely the product of global warming—weather patterns also have a lot to do with ice extent, and they contributed to the 2007 record. 

Nevertheless, much like the worsening of heat waves, Arctic ice decline is one of the most obvious  impacts of global warming—and this year, it’s possible that Arctic ice extent might reach a minimum even lower than it did in 2007.

The annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs sometime in September—that’s when the ice cover has received the most summer heat and shrunken accordingly, before beginning to build again as winter sets in. There’s a natural cycle of melt and freeze, but global warming is perturbing that cycle.

As I reported in New Scientist last year, the ice doesn’t simply rebound, during winter, back to where it was before. Rather, total ice volume has been declining, and most ice is now “first year” ice, rather than “multi-year” ice. In other words, it melts entirely in the summer, rather than surviving a full cycle and adding to its girth over years.

Which brings us to 2011: The National Snow and Ice Data Center, at the University of Colorado, is reporting that as of now, ice extent is even lower than where it was at this time of year in 2007, the record-breaker. The melt got an early start this year in many parts of the region, and has been going gangbusters ever since.

That doesn’t ensure there will be a record shattering: Weather patterns, the alignment of winds, and many other factors ultimately determine what happens with the ice and whether a record will be broken. But overall, you can bet Arctic ice extent will keep trending downward, breaking records regularly. The ice will also be losing volume steadily, and becoming “younger”: less and less of it will even be a year old.

Oh…and you can bet that deniers will have some way of explaining all of this. This year, they may have to start the rationalizations in just over a month.

Previous Comments

ChrisM says: “But overall, you can bet Arctic ice extent will keep trending downward, breaking records regularly. ” Yup! And it will continue until it stops and begins to reverse. As it has many times in the past.

We have so interfered with the natural cooling cycle the earth was in before man’s influence, that I’m sure it will be millions of years. CO2 is too long lived to think otherwise.

We have so interfered with the natural cooling cycle the earth was in before man’s influence, that I’m sure it will be millions of years. CO2 is too long lived to think otherwise.

What sort of time scale is referenced here? - Regards, Tom Gray, Wind Energy Communications Consultant

‘Yup! And it will continue until it stops and begins to reverse. As it has many times in the past.’

With atmospheric CO2 levels as they are now and forecasted to be in a business as usual?

With continental and fluid system arrangements as they are at present?

With an expanded resource hungry human civilisation and population as at the moment?

Of course not, not even close.

Yet another example of your blinkered thinking or trained mantra.

You are nothing but a drone for the fossils of the planet, and droning on as you do is becoming tedious.

Is this not telling you anything:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42456

or this

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/

this

http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

and to discover more this:

http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/08/arctic-sea-ice-is-just-fine-rebounding.html

Of course before long it will not be business as usual because no ice age is going to come to our rescue anytime soon. Draw down of CO2 to create a true ice age takes centuries at the very least. And unless we do something about it mother nature will do it for us, shrug most of us off.

Do you have kids or grandchildren that you care about a2?

LionelA believes in the tipping point with this: “Of course before long it will not be business as usual because no ice age is going to come to our rescue anytime soon.”

So Ice Ages are over forever? Even if true, that’s bad? The most equable climate the planet has had was higher in temps and CO2. And, you find that scary?

Continuing to make similar statements will convince me that believers are not high in logic…Oh wait. :-)

‘So Ice Ages are over forever? Even if true, that’s bad? The most equable climate the planet has had was higher in temps and CO2. And, you find that scary?’

So the period you are indicating was…?

Many centuries before humans took to agriculture, so what bearing does that have on our here and now, and the near future?

Continuing to make such statements convinces me that you are either stupid or have an ideological agenda maybe one coupled to financial incentives.

LionelA, asks: “So the period you are indicating was…?” if you actually knew your subject that question would be unnecessary.

Since I’m the stupid one, look it up!

Just like the dinosaurs, Hu-Mans will evetually die out.

Then the Planet will sigh, and say to itself, what was that all about ?

Yet still the cliamte will continue to change, and sea ice melt and freeze, even when we are not here to observe those changes. Those arguments that now take place would seem imbicilic to any of the very few Homonid descendants who might one day return back here from the outer reaches of the Galaxy or beyond, or wherever our hybrid offspring might end up millions of years from today.

Arguing about miniscule surface variations of a tiny part of an insignificant rock will seem like utter poppycock, to whatever our Hu-man race has become by then. It will be like how we consider the strange rituals, of stone age homonids, when we think of them today.

‘LionelA, asks: “So the period you are indicating was…?” if you actually knew your subject that question would be unnecessary.’

Not so slippery you. Oh but I do know my subject and maybe that is why you are now avoiding answering a straight question.

Let me remind you, you wrote:

‘The most equable climate the planet has had was higher in temps and CO2.’

So again I ask, when was that exactly?

LionelA, calling me stupid went over the line. Since you obviously are not, then look it up. You might be better for it!

‘LionelA, calling me stupid went over the line. Since you obviously are not, then look it up. You might be better for it!’

Well I didn’t actually call you stupid, this is what I wrote:

‘Continuing to make such statements convinces me that you are either stupid or have an ideological agenda maybe one coupled to financial incentives.’

Clearly you have a lack of comprehension skills (common amongst those who seem to lack the ability to take in the bigger pictures of climate science and focus on one or two distortion memes) so maybe you have just called yourself stupid.

Meanwhile I am still awaiting an answer to my question, I repeat:

‘Let me remind you, you wrote:

‘The most equable climate the planet has had was higher in temps and CO2.’

So again I ask, when was that exactly?’

Waiting——
waiting—
waiting

sigh

no box with brass for me just a simple weighted sack over the stern will do, but no last stitch through the nose please.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

Chris, would you care to comment on the fact that NASA has released peer reviewed papers clearly demonstrating that it was the winds and wind patterns that caused the drop in ice cover, and that it had little to nothing to do with global warming?

Or will you ignore this fact as inconvenient to your eco-panic?

But what about the “drama”?!

These drama queens love them some drama.

“Chris, would you care to comment on the fact that NASA has released peer reviewed papers clearly demonstrating that it was the winds and wind patterns that caused the drop in ice cover”

Anonymous, for starters that was a study of between 2005-2007. What is your explanation of the decrease in ice since then?

Secondly.

“and that it had little to nothing to do with global warming?”

It never said that. You made it up. Nice red herring.

“Chris, would you care to comment on the fact that NASA has released peer reviewed papers clearly demonstrating that it was the winds and wind patterns that caused the drop in ice cover, and that it had little to nothing to do with global warming?”

Well, you see, that’s the issue, isn’t it? Winds and wind patterns are largely determined by the rotation of the earth; positioning, size and topography of land masses; the temperature of the oceans; ambient surface temperatures; the collision of air masses of different temperatures, and; air pressure readings rising and falling. If temperatures are being affected by climate change, the winds and wind patterns will change. Winds are not independent of the system, they are absolutely a part of it. It’s a no-brainer

Phil M, ole buddy, let’s get our facts together here. OK? Chris makes the point that the low was 2007, and you ask: “What is your explanation of the decrease in ice since then?” Didn’t it go up if there is a low? Just wondering.

anon2 mate :)

“Chris makes the point that the low was 2007,”

He did……but then when onto say:

“Which brings us to 2011: The National Snow and Ice Data Center, at the University of Colorado, is reporting that as of now, ice extent is even lower than where it was at this time of year in 2007, the record-breaker. ”

2007 was the record breaker, but 2011 is now lower, indicating 2011 is now the record breaker.

Phil, My Friend, 2011 may break the record 2007 low. It has not yet. The ice loss rate is slightly higher than the 2007 rate. If it does break the 2007 record it will be minimal.

That still does not explain your claim of the ice being lower. It has actually recovered slightly up until this year. Moreover, the relatively minor recent fluctuations does not prove anything for the long term, unless, of course, the goal is fear mongering. Even if fear mongering, fear of what? Change? How do we stop change happening? Less ice? How do we stop that? Rising temperatures? But the extent/volume of Arctic ice is not necessarily directly related solely to temperatures. So how do we stop temperatures form rising? Stopping the Sun is not an option, and assuming that all temperature increases are related solely to GHGs is still unproved. (Note the solely)

“Phil, My Friend, 2011 may break the record 2007 low. It has not yet. ”

“Yet” is the operative word isn’t it? The summer isn’t over yet & for the moment it is tracking below 2007.

“That still does not explain your claim of the ice being lower. It has actually recovered slightly up until this year. ”

I’m not seeing a whole lot of gain there anon2.The trend is down.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

“Moreover, the relatively minor recent fluctuations does not prove anything for the long term,”

The incremental changes are not that noticeable. In a couple of decades it will be. Certainly for our children it will be blindingly obvious.

“fear of what? Change? How do we stop change happening?”

You’re right, change management is an issue & we will need to adapt. But we can do something about the rate of change & need for adaption….which will ultimately lead to mass migration. Refugees & immigrants is already a touchy subject worldwide.

“So how do we stop temperatures form rising?”

How did we stop the ozone hole growing? Surely it’s impossible that we can affect the planet…it’s huge. Surely it’s just an attack on profit.There was no other goal besides attacking profit….was there?

It’s taking an awfully long time to bring this frozen planet into the daylight.

I see a spectacular mostly ice free future. High latitude crops and all that.

When will this horrible dead winter finally end?

“I see a spectacular mostly ice free future. High latitude crops and all that.

When will this horrible dead winter finally end?

It’s funny how deniers only see a small part of the whole picture. Deniers s love to talk about the benefits of warming on already cold climates, like say Alaska or Greenland. But they choose to ignore the effects of warming on already warm climates. More floods & droughts will hardly help people in these areas.

“When will this horrible dead winter finally end?”

Oh yes, the people of Africa, India, Bangladesh etc & those close to the equator say that all the time. Mmmmm, please make it hotter……….so we are forced to migrate to other countries.

considering by as early as 2020, parts of the lower great plains and adjacent SW will begin reverting back to what it was in the Pliocene- a dust bowl, it is of no concern to deniers- who firstly have no understand of climate science, geography or hydrology- what they do is troll sights like this after receiving orders from the the Koch industries.

Hansen said that ice sheets begin to behave different at the current temperatures- now the highest in the Holocene by at least 0.15 degrees C.

As C02 plows past 400ppm in 2015 or 2016 any hope that arctic ice will begin to recover is pure fantasy. Paleo climate records show that even at 380ppm C02- sustained over time- sea levels where 20 meters higher then today as in the Pliocene.

Look for an ice free arctic in late September as early as 2020.
by 2030 C02 will be approaching 450ppm- that’s the level Hansen worries that the western Antarctic ice sheet could begin to melt much quicker, as well as Greenland.

6degrees, ice free Arctic? Which month and for how long? You do know that your estimate was trumped by 7 Yrs, but of course it’s not likely to be ice free in 2013.

It could be 2013, or after, some have said 2016- I would say anytime between 2013-2020.

If we see a decline as much as 2007, or greater, then I would assume its fair to say by 2014- we could see a decline of 50% less then that reached in late September of 2007.

6 degrees said: “then I would assume its fair to say by 2014- we could see a decline of 50% less then that reached in late September of 2007.” We’ve seen these projections now several times and it just doesn’t happen.

What do you think would be fair if 2011’s low is equal to 2007? The way the Arctic ice is progressing it will at most just barely exceed the 2007 low. Even then, there is a whole lot of ice left to melt to get to ice free.

NO prediction can be 100% accurate- there are many variables.

Your ‘We’ve seen these projections now several times and it just doesn’t happen.’ Did we expect the huge meltdown in 2007? That was 4 years ago only- how many predictions have been made since THEN? Ice will not decline every year, to a new minimum . Melting of ice takes time, there is something called ‘inertia’ The overall trend has been down over the last 4 years. While 2008 did not match 2007, it is still the second largest melt, and 2010 comes in third. I would say that there is a strong possibility that 2011, will come in with an extent as low as 2007, or as great as 2008, or 2010. It may surpass all those years- too early to know.

Can be found at the bottom of this page: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/07/14/heading-towards-the-summer-minimum-ice-extent/ . It is the graphic labeled “Average Monthly Sea Ice Extent: September 1979 to 2010”. The same graphic is reprinted here along with some additional graphs of Arctic sea ice volume: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/08/262576/arctic-death-spiral-sea-ice-volume/ - Regards, Tom Gray, Wind Energy Communications Consultant

anonymous777

Sea ice in the arctic from 1979-2000 was sustained at a stable minimum.
Was the weather different over those three decades, compared to the last 5 years?

Jim Hansen- over at NASA Goddard has a different perspective- as you read in my earlier posting. Nice cherry picking of information however.

Sea ice in the arctic from 1979-2000 was sustained at a stable minimum.
Was the weather different over those three decades, compared to the last 5 years?

There is no evidence that 1979-2000 was a stable minimum. There is no evidence from before that time period to compare too.

In 1922, the Arctic had the same weather patterns, and those winds produced the same result as we’re seeing now. Just read this text from the 1922 article and tell me it doesn’t sound like textbook global warming alarmism of today.

“Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.” Here is the text of that article: ” The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

This sea ice loss is nothing unprecedented and nothing to worry about.

there where no records of the ice minimum in late September from 1979-2000? 1979 was the first year NASA begin Satellite coverage and photographs of the north pole and high arctic region. I suggest you visit their site, but also the NSIDC- they have plenty of records there as well.

Oh yes the link to the NSIDC
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

1922? And quotes from fisherman from 90 years ago? With no photographic evidence? C’mon, you will have to do better then that- this is not my first trip to the Rodeo> Science is about collecting hard objective data from reliable sources. I had a prof in college who told be then when coming up with a hypothesis- if you put garbage in you get garbage out, with all do respect to the fisherman in 1922.

This sea ice loss is nothing unprecedented and nothing to worry about?
I have heard that standard denial line just about EVERYWHERE.

It’s funny, WUWT who usually get really excited at the slightest rise in arctic sea ice are suspiciously quiet at present about the arctic. No story on it for weeks.

As a bit of serendipity, WUWT actually has a story on massive antarctic ice loss.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/26/antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-worse-than-we-thought/

I’ts commenters can’t believe their eyes & try to punch holes in the story. R. Gates does a sterling job on the deniers & get’s high score for “whack a mole”. Pwning them with science.

Deniers & liars for hire.

Creating climate hysteria is kind of like a monkey throwing crap.

http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/New-Picture-38.jpg

The more excrement that is tossed the higher the probability that something will stick and cause hysteria. For example over the last three years one of Chris’s biggest piles of flying excrement has been the coming hurricane armageddon. What did we get? The longest period of time since the Civil War without a hurricane making US landfall. Well Chris didn’t earn his money there did he? Although you can bet that when a hurricane does finally make its way to US shores Chris will be claiming he was a climate seer and warn that this is just the beginning of the end.

That brings us to today’s odds improving, heat seeking load of excrement headed our way, ice melt. Never mind that according to the latest research, scientists find that the Arctic was likely ice free on numerous occasions during the early Holocene. What’s important is that when you’re paid to frighten people, you must create the meme that unexceptional weather and events that have already been known to happen in the past, is somehow novel and attributable only to man. There is an unlimited supply of fecal climate matter should this “ice melt” load miss the mark.

So by all means let the drama begin. Yawn….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well, Howdy, during the early holocene, there weren’t 6 billion people and counting on the planet. They weren’t burning tonnes and tonnes of CO2 PER CAPITA annually into the atmosphere. They had lots of room to move inland from the coastal areas if the sea level was rising. They didn’t have hundreds of millions of people living in vulnerable river deltas. There weren’t great cities like New York, Venice, London, Rio de Janeiro and so forth living at the water’s edge. In short, there was a whole lot more land to go around.

Now we are camped here, cheek-by-jowl, to the next vulnerable person, trying to grab a toe-hold. And we are running out of room. If the seas rise, consider for a moment how much less space there will be for the 7 billion they are predicting in only a few year’s time.

If the ice melts, we are looking at significant land loss coinciding with significant population growth. Do the math. Or did you pass grade three?

you said : “burning tonnes and tonnes of CO2 PER CAPITA annually into the atmosphere” - but of course CO2 is a PRODUCT of combustion and cannot be “burnt” further.

you said : “camped here, cheek-by-jowl, to the next vulnerable person, trying to grab a toe-hold” - but the entire World population, if “camped cheek-by-jowl”, could easily fit onto the Island of Ireland. That is a fact. There are not so many Humans as it may appear to you, especially if you mostly live in a town or a city.

Sadly it is YOU who need to “do the math”, but here is a suggestion.
Stop un-necessarily worrying over things which you cannot change and learn to live with the ever changing climate, because like all Humans you will only live for a short while, and then you will be dead for a very long time.

“Stop un-necessarily worrying over things which you cannot change and learn to live with the ever changing climate”

Why did we bother with the ozone hole then if we cannot change anything? Just because we are small in scale compared to the planet, does not mean we cannot change it. Does the same go for microbes living in your body? Is it impossible for you to get sick or die from something living inside you that is so small you need a high powered microscope to see it?

“because like all Humans you will only live for a short while, and then you will be dead for a very long time.”

The earth is a bit like a hire car. We all get a turn to use it, but ulimately, we have to leave it in good working condition for the next ones to use it. It’s simply thoughtless & unworkable to live for the moment, care about yourself & not leave anything behind.It’s resources & regenerative abilities are not limitless.

” nearly 40 percent below its long term average. ”

And what is this “long term” time period, about 3.4 decades? Are you serious?

The chart you referred to is about Concentration, a 2 dimensional measurement.

Arctic Ice Mass / Volume is declining even faster.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

Much of the ice which remains is a remnant of what was once permanent ice shelves or meters thick multi-year ice.

When that is gone we will be left with a thin annual layer of ice which melts to liquid for 3 months each year.

Sadly this is a fantasy of yours, based on the very few years that you have been alive, and your inability to contemplete time at geological and cosmic scales. Do you have some difficulty with the concept of the fact that you are on a big wet rock hurtling uncontrollably though space.

You are not in control of its trajectory. There is zero possibility that feeble Hu-mans can alter this trajectory to any significant degree. Who are you to be making those niminy-piminy predictions about ice melts. You are like a flea on an elephants back trying to predict which way the elephant might go next.

“You are not in control of its trajectory”

No one said we are trying to change the direction our planet moves through space.

“There is zero possibility that feeble Hu-mans can alter this trajectory to any significant degree.”

There is zero possibility that microscopic bacteria or viruses such as ebola or golden staph can change your trajectory, but there is a good chance they can affect your health.How is that possible? They are small.

Wow, d’Smogblog has deleted a lot of comments here!

I wonder what they’re frantically trying to hide?

In the real world, where cosmic forces play a much greater part than feeble carbon-based life-forms, a significan shift in the earths tilt due to cosmic forces, proximity of other planetary bodies & etc, has meant that whilst artic ice has on the whole moved to a slightly lesser July-August cover, the Antartic cover has increased over the same time, so that the combined total stayed about the same.

That isnt hard to understand is it ? As the Earth tilts, it tilts awy from or nearer THE SUN. The Sun is very hot and powerful, and dwarfs anything that a few billion Hu-Mans might think that they do.

The entire climate-change falderol is a product of the fleeting instant that is the Human lifespan. This is just an illusion in the Hu-Man brian caused by the inability of most Hu-Mans to understand long periods of time, and a brain which has a memory of “the climate when I was young”, and an expectation that the climate of our youth should stay the same.

This failure to understand and recognise the power of cosmic forces, and the Hu-Man trait of arrogance an hubris, and an obsession with twee detail, is teh main reason for these panic scenarios. We are all stood or sat on A WET ROCK hurtling uncontrollably through space and time, at thousands of miles an hour. The climate changes, so get used to it.

You should call your self “unreal world”.

The tilt of of the earth’s axis is where it is expected to be at this point in the Precession cycle. There has been no unexpected devation that requires anyone to invoke “cosmic forces”, just centuries old Newtonian Physics.

Your claim about a significant unexpected change in the polar tilt is another case of deniers getting things exactly backwards and making up or repeating lies.

Thank you for your contribution to that archetype, but no tax receipt will be issued.

It was you who raised up that particular “Straw Man”
and so I am happy to burn it down in flames. Nowhere
in the “Real World” comment did they say that any
such shift in the axis was “unexpected”.

Still such a shift on axis has recently occurred,
and it has resulted in a change of the ice balance,
between the two poles, yet the overall icxe cover
has been about the same or perhaps a very slight
increase. This is what has been observed, empirically.

Your emotional outburst fools nobody but yourself.

“Still such a shift on axis has recently occurred,
and it has resulted in a change of the ice balance,
between the two poles,”

Naturally, you can provide proof of this from a reputable source?

“yet the overall icxe cover
has been about the same or perhaps a very slight
increase.”

So over a period of say 30-40 years ( long term trend to remove the year to year noise) you can provide a graph from a reputable institution that shows a flat line trend or a slight increase for arctic ice?

This will be good.

“utterpoppycock” is about as clear as you can get in terms of a handle for being full of sound and fury signifying nothing

This just in;
Arctic scientist involved in polar bear scare is under investigation. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/28/ap/business/main20084614.shtml

‘This just in;
Arctic scientist involved in polar bear scare is under investigation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/28/ap/business/main20084614.shtml’

OK and now for the real story:

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1503

ARCTIC SCIENTIST PROTESTS WITCH HUNT ON POLAR BEAR PAPER — Key Studies Disrupted as Supervising Federal Scientist Suspended from Duties

Washington, DC — One of the country’s top Arctic scientists is being hounded in a political attempt to impugn his observations on polar bears’ vulnerability to retreating sea ice, according to a scientific misconduct complaint filed today on his behalf by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) against Interior Department officials. The scientist is now on administrative leave and forbidden from communicating with co-workers, thus disrupting a large portfolio of ongoing scientific research.’

’ The probe is being conducted by criminal investigators with no scientific training or background, who, based upon their questions, have little grasp of the scientific issues they are investigating;

They have rifled through all of Dr. Monnett’s e-mails and seized his papers and equipment, impeding his ability to work even before he was ordered to stay home; and

The investigators are seeking a link to former Vice President Al Gore, who referenced the polar bear paper in his book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth.’

‘“Despite bold rhetoric about respecting science, this case illustrates that federal scientists working in controversial areas today are at greater risk than during the Bush administration,” added Ruch, pointing to heightened pressure on Alaska BOEM scientists to expedite offshore drilling approvals under President Obama. “If Interior’s scientific integrity policies offer no protection to scientists like Dr. Monnett, they are not worth the paper on which they are printed.” ’

Meanwhile Dr. Monnett’s work is on hold which is the aim of this nonsense - to delay even more solid foundations for questioning our energy policies. But of course you are too dim or ideological warped to understand this.

Hm! See this driven by fossil fuel interests (and we know who they are) hell bent on getting oil out of the Arctic ocean, of which the ice isn’t melting because there is no global warming - it having stopped over the last ten years - according to you lot who cannot seem to be consistent in your arguments.

And these fossil fuel interests who from their own poor safety record when it comes to blow outs, pipeline ruptures or tanker accidents don’t give a damn about anything except fat profits. Profits at the same time as getting huge subsidies from the US tax payer as well as tax breaks. If these perks were stopped then all US citizens could get affordable health care. Of course a big problem with that latter is also due to fat profits - this time by the health and health insurance entities that act like leeches on society.

And before you go on about lefties and commies, I am neither just a person who dislike injustice and those who exploit others, in other words humanitarian. The left - right way of looking at things is such a monochromatic and decadent a view point.

Consider these recent postings:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/28/281696/oil-on-yellowstone-river/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/28/281602/coast-guard-testifies-its-totally-unprepared-for-an-arctic-oil-spill-we-have-zero-to-operate-with-at-present/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/28/281465/exxon-and-shell-announce-massive-profit-gains-all-the-more-to-spend-on-influence-peddling-and-climate-denial/

These fossil idiots shouldn’t be let loose with a Meccano set let alone oil exploration.

And now for the true story, from the Anchorage daily news;

http://www.adn.com/2011/07/28/1989382/arctic-scientist-under-investigation.html

These so-called ‘scientists’ will no longer be allowed to twist their reports to fit their political agendas. Rational people are demanding the unbiased science reporting.

Pages