The North Pole could melt this year

[Chris]

You do realize that Nobel peace winners don't take 10,000 dollars to sell out their reputation right?

Here's a quote from the Newsweek article...


"Still, like a great beast that has been wounded, the denial machine is not what it once was. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000. After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, "We're very much not a denier." In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. "I just can't imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto," said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. "I mean, what a disaster!"

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, I started reading the article and gave up after the first few paragraphs filled with such obvious unsupported prejudice and exaggerated bias that would have earned a solid F minus when I was in journalism school and probably gotten a first year reporter fired in my day. I have read some excellent reasoned articles on the pro AGW side that really have sent me back to review my homework and do further study. This wasn't one of them.

 

[Chris]

Yeah, I started reading the article and gave up after the first few paragraphs filled with such obvious unsupported prejudice and exaggerated bias that would have earned a solid F minus when I was in journalism school and probably gotten a first year reporter fired in my day. I have read some excellent reasoned articles on the pro AGW side that really have sent me back to review my homework and do further study. This wasn't one of them.

You stopped reading. That is your problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

You stopped reading. That is your problem.

No, I haven't stopped reading at all. I just stopped reading an article that didn't support a single prejudiced assertion made in the first several paragraphs. I choose to devote my time allocated for reading for something that actually provides useful information.

 

[Chris]

Yeah, I started reading the article and gave up after the first few paragraphs filled with such obvious unsupported prejudice and exaggerated bias that would have earned a solid F minus when I was in journalism school and probably gotten a first year reporter fired in my day. I have read some excellent reasoned articles on the pro AGW side that really have sent me back to review my homework and do further study. This wasn't one of them.

The truth hurts doesn't it....

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated Jan. 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

Warming war
May 19: View a TV ad produced for the Competitive Enterprise Institute that argues against regulating manmade carbon dioxide emissions as pollutants.
MSNBC.com


CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”

Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.

 

[Foxfyre]

The truth hurts doesn't it....

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated Jan. 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

Warming war
May 19: View a TV ad produced for the Competitive Enterprise Institute that argues against regulating manmade carbon dioxide emissions as pollutants.
MSNBC.com


CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”

Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.

So did it ever occur to you that what you are saying here is proof positive that the oil companies are NOT bribing scientists to deny global warming? Did it ever occur to you that oil companies are as eagerl to make a buck off global warming as much as anybody else? Oil companies are not in the business of providing oil. Oil as it comes from the ground has little use to anybody. Oil companies are in the business of providing energy in a usable form. So the oil companies are no more tied to oil than anybody else if they can figure out other ways to make money.

All the oil companies have been on the cutting edge of renewable energy sources including wind, solar, and bio. Recently ConocoPhillips invested mega millions to construct a new facility in Texas that converts beef fat for use as auto fuel and for other purposes. And don't think the oil companies aren't investing in mandated ethanol production even as they object to the principle of ethanol. (Ethanol is more expensive to refine for each unit of useful energy produced when compared to gasoline and diesel, it requires different storage tanks, pumps, and trucks, and must be transported by truck rather than piped.) But once oil companies are foced into making such investments, they don't want to see them go down the tubes.

A little common sense and following the money goes a long way to avoid making foolish errors in assessing the situation that currently exists.

So yes, if mega bucks are to be made--even when those paying bigger bills at the gas pump or whatever are us--the oil companies are not likely to refuse to jump on that bandwagon.

 

[Chris]

So did it ever occur to you that what you are saying here is proof positive that the oil companies are NOT bribing scientists to deny global warming? Did it ever occur to you that oil companies are as eagerl to make a buck off global warming as much as anybody else? Oil companies are not in the business of providing oil. Oil as it comes from the ground has little use to anybody. Oil companies are in the business of providing energy in a usable form. So the oil companies are no more tied to oil than anybody else if they can figure out other ways to make money.

All the oil companies have been on the cutting edge of renewable energy sources including wind, solar, and bio. Recently ConocoPhillips invested mega millions to construct a new facility in Texas that converts beef fat for use as auto fuel and for other purposes. And don't think the oil companies aren't investing in mandated ethanol production even as they object to the principle of ethanol. (Ethanol is more expensive to refine for each unit of useful energy produced when compared to gasoline and diesel, it requires different storage tanks, pumps, and trucks, and must be transported by truck rather than piped.) But once oil companies are foced into making such investments, they don't want to see them go down the tubes.

A little common sense and following the money goes a long way to avoid making foolish errors in assessing the situation that currently exists.

So yes, if mega bucks are to be made--even when those paying bigger bills at the gas pump or whatever are us--the oil companies are not likely to refuse to jump on that bandwagon.

No, it's proof positive that the oil companies have stopped bribing scientists because the science is so irrefutable.

 

[jreeves]

You have adopted the three rules of lying...deny, deny, deny.

Great article. Everyone should read it.


Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com

Science means nothing to you, only hit and run pieces down by liberal news organizations. One of the original scientist to claim global warming existed backtracked from his original statement.

You claim Exxon has bought off scientist, while you fail to realize that there is tons more money in it for these scientist to promote man made global warming. There is large government grants that these scientist line there pockets with everytime they promote this hysteria. Deny all you want, here is one more article just for you though......

ABC News: The Global Warming Myth?
The heavy breathing over global warming is enough to terrify anyone.

Last week the Washington Post interviewed a 9-year-old who said the Earth is "just starting to fade away." In 20 years there will be "no oxygen" he said, and he'll be dead. The Post went on to say that "for many children and young adults, global warming is…defining their generation." How sad.

Thirty-six years of consumer reporting have taught me to be skeptical of environmental scares. Much of what the media scares us about turns out to be myths.

Watch "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" on a special edition of "20/20" Friday, May 4th at 10 p.m. EDT

But is the global warming crisis a myth? Read on.

Excerpts from "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," coming out in paperback May 1. (Click here to buy "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity").

MYTH: Global warming will cause huge disruptions in climate, more storms, and the coasts will flood! America must sign the Kyoto Treaty!

This has to be broken into four pieces.

MYTH No. 1: The Earth is warming!

TRUTH: The Earth is warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the global average surface temperature increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the 20th century.

MYTH No. 2: The Earth is warming because of us!

TRUTH: Maybe. The frantic media suggest it's all about us. But the IPCC only said it is likely that we have increased the warming.

Our climate has always undergone changes. Greenland was named Greenland because its coasts used to be very green. It's presumptuous to think humans' impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. And who is to say that last year's temperature is the perfect optimum? Warmer may be better! More people die in cold waves than heat waves.
MYTH No. 3: There will be storms, flooded coasts and huge disruptions in climate!

TRUTH: There are always storms and floods. Will there be much bigger disruptions in climate? Probably not.

Schoolchildren I've interviewed were convinced that America is "dying" in a sea of pollution and that "cities will soon be under water!"

Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) warn that "sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often."

Wow.

But many scientists laugh at the panic.

Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."

The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.
Scientists tell reporters that computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they?

The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.
Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

MYTH No. 4: Signing the Kyoto Treaty would stop the warming.

TRUTH: Hardly.

In 1997, the United Nations met in Kyoto, Japan, and asked the developed nations of the world to cut CO2 emission to below 1990 levels.

And even advocates of Kyoto admit that if all the nations signed the Kyoto agreement and obeyed it, global temperatures would still increase. The difference by 2050 would be less than a tenth of a degree. The fuss over Kyoto is absurd. Even if Kyoto would have an impact, do you think all the signers are going to honor what they signed? China is predicted to out-emit us in five to 10 years. India will soon follow. What incentive do they have to stop burning fossil fuels? Get the shovel.

The fundamentalist greens imply if we just conserved energy, and switched from fossil fuels to wind and solar power (they rarely mention nuclear power -- the most practical alternative), we would live in a nonglobal-warming fairyland of happiness. But their proposals are hopelessly impractical. Building solar panels burns energy, as does trucking them and installing them. Not to mention taking them down again to repair them.

To think that solar energy could stop the predicted temperature increase is nonsensical. EPCOT, a theme park with a solar energy ride, consumes about 395,000 kilowatt-hours per day. The Department of Energy says you'd need around a thousand acres of solar panels to generate that much electricity. EPCOT itself only sits on 300 acres, so you'd have to triple the size of the park just to operate it. (Windmills are no panacea either. They are giant bird-killing Cuisinarts, and we'd have to build lots of them to produce significant energy.)


Take a deep breath droughts aren't unusually high, as a matter of fact in the last 100 years there hasn't been as many. Careless humans are for the most part responsible for the wildfires in CA......You don't need to get your panties in bunch, everything is just fine. Just remember in the 70's a lot of scientists, (probably the same ones claiming man made global warming) were calling for global cooling.

 

[Chris]

Science means nothing to you, only hit and run pieces down by liberal news organizations. One of the original scientist to claim global warming existed backtracked from his original statement.

You claim Exxon has bought off scientist, while you fail to realize that there is tons more money in it for these scientist to promote man made global warming. There is large government grants that these scientist line there pockets with everytime they promote this hysteria. Deny all you want, here is one more article just for you though......

ABC News: The Global Warming Myth?
The heavy breathing over global warming is enough to terrify anyone.

Last week the Washington Post interviewed a 9-year-old who said the Earth is "just starting to fade away." In 20 years there will be "no oxygen" he said, and he'll be dead. The Post went on to say that "for many children and young adults, global warming is…defining their generation." How sad.

Thirty-six years of consumer reporting have taught me to be skeptical of environmental scares. Much of what the media scares us about turns out to be myths.

Watch "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" on a special edition of "20/20" Friday, May 4th at 10 p.m. EDT

But is the global warming crisis a myth? Read on.

Excerpts from "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," coming out in paperback May 1. (Click here to buy "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity").

MYTH: Global warming will cause huge disruptions in climate, more storms, and the coasts will flood! America must sign the Kyoto Treaty!

This has to be broken into four pieces.

MYTH No. 1: The Earth is warming!

TRUTH: The Earth is warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the global average surface temperature increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the 20th century.

MYTH No. 2: The Earth is warming because of us!

TRUTH: Maybe. The frantic media suggest it's all about us. But the IPCC only said it is likely that we have increased the warming.

Our climate has always undergone changes. Greenland was named Greenland because its coasts used to be very green. It's presumptuous to think humans' impact matters so much in comparison to the frightening geologic history of the earth. And who is to say that last year's temperature is the perfect optimum? Warmer may be better! More people die in cold waves than heat waves.
MYTH No. 3: There will be storms, flooded coasts and huge disruptions in climate!

TRUTH: There are always storms and floods. Will there be much bigger disruptions in climate? Probably not.

Schoolchildren I've interviewed were convinced that America is "dying" in a sea of pollution and that "cities will soon be under water!"

Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) warn that "sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often."

Wow.

But many scientists laugh at the panic.

Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."

The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.
Scientists tell reporters that computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they?

The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.
Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

MYTH No. 4: Signing the Kyoto Treaty would stop the warming.

TRUTH: Hardly.

In 1997, the United Nations met in Kyoto, Japan, and asked the developed nations of the world to cut CO2 emission to below 1990 levels.

And even advocates of Kyoto admit that if all the nations signed the Kyoto agreement and obeyed it, global temperatures would still increase. The difference by 2050 would be less than a tenth of a degree. The fuss over Kyoto is absurd. Even if Kyoto would have an impact, do you think all the signers are going to honor what they signed? China is predicted to out-emit us in five to 10 years. India will soon follow. What incentive do they have to stop burning fossil fuels? Get the shovel.

The fundamentalist greens imply if we just conserved energy, and switched from fossil fuels to wind and solar power (they rarely mention nuclear power -- the most practical alternative), we would live in a nonglobal-warming fairyland of happiness. But their proposals are hopelessly impractical. Building solar panels burns energy, as does trucking them and installing them. Not to mention taking them down again to repair them.

To think that solar energy could stop the predicted temperature increase is nonsensical. EPCOT, a theme park with a solar energy ride, consumes about 395,000 kilowatt-hours per day. The Department of Energy says you'd need around a thousand acres of solar panels to generate that much electricity. EPCOT itself only sits on 300 acres, so you'd have to triple the size of the park just to operate it. (Windmills are no panacea either. They are giant bird-killing Cuisinarts, and we'd have to build lots of them to produce significant energy.)


Take a deep breath droughts aren't unusually high, as a matter of fact in the last 100 years there hasn't been as many. Careless humans are for the most part responsible for the wildfires in CA......You don't need to get your panties in bunch, everything is just fine. Just remember in the 70's a lot of scientists, (probably the same ones claiming man made global warming) were calling for global cooling.

Exxon has given up buying off scientists, since they now realize they were wrong. Even Bush now admits that global warming is a problem. You may be the only denier left.

As far as drought goes, I posted a link explaining that California's brush is drier than it has ever been this early in the fire season. Here's a quote from today's paper....

"Since a series of dry lightning strikes ignited more than 1,500 wildfires across central and Northern California on June 21, more than 520,000 acres, or 814 square miles, of range and forest land has gone up in flames."

 

[editec]

Re:

BrianHQuote:
Originally Posted by editec
Odd.

I can't find any evidence of volcanic activity under the polar ice cap in any reputable scientific journal.

I see a LOT about it in right wing blogs, though.

Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice | LiveScience

I posted this earlier....

Thank you, BrianH. I must have missed your link.

My apologies.

Fascinating.

Whether it is a significant cause of polar icecap melting, I cannot say.

Apparently scientific consensus seems to think its impact on the icecap is minimal.

With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun. Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.
"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."
The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.
The research, detailed in the June 26 issue of the journal Nature, was funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation and WHOI.

source

 

[jreeves]

Exxon has given up buying off scientists, since they now realize they were wrong. Even Bush now admits that global warming is a problem. You may be the only denier left.

As far as drought goes, I posted a link explaining that California's brush is drier than it has ever been this early in the fire season. Here's a quote from today's paper....

"Since a series of dry lightning strikes ignited more than 1,500 wildfires across central and Northern California on June 21, more than 520,000 acres, or 814 square miles, of range and forest land has gone up in flames."

Sure so the government hands out grants like thet are candy and you wonder why GW hysteria has spread throughout the scientific community. Please repost your drought link cause all I seen was a 5 day forecast, while I posted a 100 year history. I still haven't heard back regarding the differences in the drought chart that I posted over the last 2 years. Remember, 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness. A link would be nice for articles that you so easily pull out of your ass.

 

[editec]

Sure so the government hands out grants like thet are candy and you wonder why GW hysteria has spread throughout the scientific community. Please repost your drought link cause all I seen was a 5 day forecast, while I posted a 100 year history. I still haven't heard back regarding the differences in the drought chart that I posted over the last 2 years. Remember, 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness. A link would be nice for articles that you so easily pull out of your ass.

I get notification every day about what government grants are forthcoming, and I can assure you that the government does NOT hand out global warming grants like candy.

I have seen see VERY few grants aimed at global warming research in the last three years or so I have been getting these daily GovGrants updates.

 

[Chris]

Sure so the government hands out grants like thet are candy and you wonder why GW hysteria has spread throughout the scientific community. Please repost your drought link cause all I seen was a 5 day forecast, while I posted a 100 year history. I still haven't heard back regarding the differences in the drought chart that I posted over the last 2 years. Remember, 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness. A link would be nice for articles that you so easily pull out of your ass.

When people have no facts to back up what they are saying, they fall back on insults. Be sure to read the entire article twice.

California Fire Season Likely to Get Worse

 

[BrianH]

Re:



Thank you, BrianH. I must have missed your link.

My apologies.

Fascinating.

Whether it is a significant cause of polar icecap melting, I cannot say.

Apparently scientific consensus seems to think its impact on the icecap is minimal.



source

Well sure, I'm not saying it has an impact, but it certainly is plausible. It cannot be something simply written off because someone disagrees with it. As kirk does. IMO, Kirk uses volcanic activity on the equator to explain the Little Ice Age....COoling of the Earth. It is not inconceivable that increased volcanic activity in arctic waters could warm the water and cause ice to melt, especially during the summer in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[jreeves]

When people have no facts to back up what they are saying, they fall back on insults. Be sure to read the entire article twice.

California Fire Season Likely to Get Worse

I haven't used insults, quite to the contrary, I have used facts to dispute your man made gw hysteria. I see there is nothing you can point out on the drought charts that have changed in the last two years.


BTW you do realize the title, California Fire Season likely to get worse, doesn't in fact mean it is worse? Secondly when did California, constitute the whole globe, we are talking about global warming, correct? I have clearly showed you that droughts aren't on the rise in the last 100 years.

 

[TopGunna]

Satellite photos don't lie.

Yes. As we know, satellite photos don't lie, so here is one from the University of Illinois comparing Arctic sea ice content today and 20 years ago.

There's one million fewer square kilometers of sea ice in the Arctic, but one million more square kilometers in the Antarctic.

Only people lie....

YOUR photo, on the other hand, is a drawing. You linked it from a website called worldwithoutwinter.com, which is part of a gay science fiction webring. I'm serious:

Check out the webrings above and below for more. You’ll also find other gay author sites covering all types of gay fiction, including gay science fiction.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

[Chris]

Yes. As we know, satellite photos don't lie, so here is one from the University of Illinois comparing Arctic sea ice content today and 20 years ago.

There's one million fewer square kilometers of sea ice in the Arctic, but one million more square kilometers in the Antarctic.



YOUR photo, on the other hand, is a drawing. You linked it from a website called worldwithoutwinter.com, which is part of a gay science fiction webring. I'm serious:


Not that there's anything wrong with that...

The three rules of lying, deny, deny, deny...


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[BrianH]

The three rules of lying, deny, deny, deny...


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Which is something you've obviously mastered....

 

[Chris]

Which is something you've obviously mastered....

These photos are from NASA....


NASA - Top Story - RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE - October 23, 2003

 

[Chris]

TopGunna, thanks for bringing up the University of Illinois, they have some good researchers....

Regardless of global warming, rising CO2 levels threaten marine life