Comments on: Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 01 May 2009 10:38:08 +0000

Sorry the link did finaly show and that is very interesting.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 01 May 2009 10:35:11 +0000

Seems to me AGW has alot of people chasing their tail. Theres evidence to show man-made global warming is causing it and theres evidence to show its natural. I think we need to look away from the ice and look to a paper trail showing this was a pre-meditated scam. Also the link that Ron posted is not correct for me does anyone have a different URL for it? I also belive innocent until proven guilty- so if it is still in debate how can they implement taxes on us, any lawyers able to answer this?

By: Richard Heg

Richard Heg — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:40:26 +0000

Oh they have an answer for everything and guess what its all our fault:
“It’s the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That’s why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

By: Another Ian

Another Ian — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:09:24 +0000

And to help Francis (12:39:33) :

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25359558-5003402,00.html

By: Another Ian

Another Ian — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:49:48 +0000

Might be something in this – still an on-line item on 20th April!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

Greg Roberts | April 18, 2009
Article from: The Australian
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

By: Francis

Francis — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:39:33 +0000

It appears that, “The Australian’s ongoing war against climate science,” has won one….The source cited does not agree with the conclusions of the newspaper article….Despite the AGW diminishing of ice in the Arctic, Greenland, and Western Antarctica….Ian Allison’s, “only claim is that Eastern Antarctica is cooling, with anecdotal evidence confirming a ‘slight increase’ in sea ice. Moreover, this could be explained by the fact that the Antarctic is acontinent surrounded by the Southern Ocean, which may be absorbing global heat. The Antarctic also has an ozone hole above it…”….See scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ and following.

By: Ron de Haan

Ron de Haan — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:30:04 +0000

Laurence Kirk (20:48:48) :

Contributors may or may not be aware that the pleasant and sincere Australian Environment Minister, Peter Garret’s previous training and experience has been as a popular rock musician. Also that the prime minister, perhaps wary of Mr Garret’s sincerity and demonstrated propensity to say what he believes rather than what is politically expedient, excluded ‘climate change’ from his portfolio and appointed a sepecific Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong. Ms Wong’s background is in law, the trade union movement, the Labour Party and the Uniting Church, which would appear to align her far more closely with prime minister Kevin Rudd’s intentions and purposes.

What shocks me though is the complete lack of any scientific background or expertise in the people appointed to these positions. Without even a basic training in scientific method, nor any specific scientific background, how could such people be expected to judge the validity of the advice that they are being given? Without any scientific background, the tendency to evaluate and choose advice on the basis of whether it confirms their previous public positions and whether it suits their political purposes must be fairly compelling.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/15/2543797.htm

Laurence,

This is how it works.

The idea to promote AGW comes from the UN.

The IPPCC digests the scientific reports, cherry picks the data and creates models in order to deliver the proof of the hoax so to say.

At the same time they create a closed circuit of conferences.

These conferences are visited by scientists who are paid to follow the “UN party line” and advise the Governments.

The external consulting bureaus are also infested and biased in favor of the UN IPCC.

What is going on is nothing more but a coup against humanity.

Some people believe that the current world population needs five planets to sustain and expand the current consumption patterns.
Via the control over CO2 emissions they control every aspect of our civilization, our industry, our transportation systems, our consumption including food production and population growth/reduction.

We all know we don’t need five planets to maintain and or expand our life styles.
We have sufficient resources and we will be able create much more prosperity for all of humanity.

The idea’s are sick. The science is wrong, the motovation is based up on lies and deception.
We have all the reasons to stop the entire process at any price.

Hope you dig it.

Read http://green-agenda.com and Agenda 21 of the UN (this Agenda is already ratified by most of the countries in the world.
If a country that has not signed this Agenda is in need of Word Bank Support, the first document they have to sign is the Agenda 21 treaty.

By: Francis

Francis — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:25:26 +0000

To MikeN…”And its probably descriptive of this situation that the Arctic Ocean is mostly surrounded by land, while the Antarctic continent is entirely surrounded by water.”…improves only that sentence…To be more explicit: AGW theory suggests that polar warming would be greater in the hemisphere that has more land area. Since land can absorb less of the heat from the sun, the atmosphere above becomes warmer. Below the equator there is a greater expanse of oceans. The water can better absorb the heat from the sun, by moving it into the depths. So, the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere will be relatively cooler. And therefor there is less heat to move (thru the Westerlies) to Antarctica.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:29:17 +0000

>And its probably relevant that the Arctic is mostly surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is entirely surrounded by water.

Water is surrounded by land and land is surrounded by water. Why is that relevant again?

By: Alan S. Blue

Alan S. Blue — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:25:02 +0000

Bart van Deenen,

Look at the red line, not the black line. Of course the black line is rising – it is indeed a seasonal effect. The red line is “current ice – average ice” though, so any time the red line is above zero we have “above average ice” for this specific date of the year.

It would be interesting to see how wide the variance is on the anomaly though.

By: Francis

Francis — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:22:26 +0000

(1)…AGW theory suggests that polar warming would be greater in the hemisphere that has more land area. That is the northern hemisphere. And its probably relevant that the Arctic is mostly surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is entirely surrounded by water. (2)…East Antarctica (with its ice averaging about 6500 ft in thickness) gets the cooling effect of altitude. The Arctic Ocean is, of course, at sea level. (3)…Warming can be global without being everywhere. There’s nothing contradictory about parts of East Antarctica cooling. (4)…Incidentally, The Australian is owned by Rupert Mordoch.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:59:29 +0000

“The other reason is that if the world warms, the seas around Antarctica will warm and the models show the warming surrounding seas increasing precipitation on the continent and actually increasing snow pack. In fact, increases in Antarctic ice pack actually exceed decreases forecast in ice packs around the rest of the world. The entirety of the IPCC ocean rise scenario is driven by the thermal expansion of water, not net ice melting.
”

From climate-skeptic.com

By: Pierre Gosselin

Pierre Gosselin — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:27:44 +0000

Antarctic sea ice is growing.
No wonder I have yet to find a simgle alarmists who will bet on their own dire predictions!!

I can’t find a single scientist that will bet sea levels will rise 6 cm or more in the next 10 years (60 cm in 1 century, which is far below what many of these crackpot alarmists insist on).

If anyone here in this forum finds a sucker willing to bet $1000 on the above scenario.
LET ME KNOW!

By: Michael D Smith

Michael D Smith — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:09:55 +0000

Sea ice up 43% since 1980:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.109.3

I haven’t seen this mentioned here much… Anyone tried to vet this story?

By: Steve Keohane

Steve Keohane — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:12:42 +0000

John Finn (01:56:59) how about showing us the 'data'?