I'm glad you said the ice "seems" to be melting, since that, too, is open to interpretation--I mean, ice can lie. Meanwhile, my supply chain guys are looking into the feasibility of shipping product through the Arctic Ocean to our customers in Russia, something formerly impossible. Yeah, they're spending the time and money because the ice "seems" to be melting, and the water "seems" to be open. Unfortunately, I think their effort might be wasted, though I await the report, since the ice roads to get our product north aren't hard enough anymore anyway. It "seems" like they are melting.
I noticed you made an issue about seems - instead of addressing the important part of the statement the "man made" side. When the facts are on your side argue the facts, when the law is on your side argue the law... when nothing is on your side.... bang the table and make a lot of noise.... Quote taught to law students by good law professors. Good job with the noise. By the way the ice is increasing in other spots... and although I suspect the ice is melting I said seems -- because seems is the correct way to describe it.
Well I enjoyed the post, anyway. It could be a fluke, just like the additional levels of precipitation (snow) could be a fluke despite AGW theory predicting it.
No, "seems" is not, and he was right to tease you for your ignorance. NASA launched its ICESAT satellite for measuring ice cover using laser altimetry in 2003. You can Google it online, and you can even find that the data was used by the National Snow and Ice Data Center to conclude that global ice melt is increasing drastically: http://nsidc.org/quickfacts/icesheets.html It's broken down by region here: http://nsidc.org/quickfacts/
Does it not make you a little uncomfortable that your claim is entirely at odds with science. The peak bodies of world science that have official positions affirming that AGW is real: The national science academies * of Australia, * of Belgium, * of Brazil, * of Cameroon, * Royal Society of Canada, * of the Caribbean, * of China, * Institut de France, * of Ghana, * Leopoldina of Germany, * of Indonesia, * of Ireland, * Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy, * of India, * of Japan, * of Kenya, * of Madagascar, * of Malaysia, * of Mexico, * of Nigeria, * Royal Society of New Zealand, * Russian Academy of Sciences, * of Senegal, * of South Africa, * of Sudan, * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, * of Tanzania, * of Uganda, * The Royal Society of the United Kingdom, * of the United States, * of Zambia, * of Zimbabwe. As well as the national science academies, numerous scientific societies of enormous international standing also officially assert the reality of AGW. These include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Geophysical Union and the World Meteorological Organization. The number of science academies or scientific societies of international standing that have official positions disputing AGW is exactly zero.
Good point, I don't give a crap about global warming because I have air-conditioning. You might consider making this new fangled invention available to yourself.
I was watching a documentary on glacial ice the other night. It was estimated that the world wide cost of rising sea levels would be in the trillions. Assuming GW is a fact AND that it's man made AND that there is anything that can be done about it the first place. What is the estimated cost of slowing or stopping MMGW and the subsequent sea level rise? IOW is it even cost affective? Are we going to spend as much or more trying to change the climate as we would anyway due to the changing climate?