The worst kind of ugly climate propaganda: David Suzuki targets kids at Christmas in the name of climate change

@getting warm
What I would deny is that you have any remotely compelling evidence to support your assertions. Moreover, the uncovering of agricultural artefacts and organic material underneath seasonally retreating land-ice tells us something. Ten points if you can guess what that is. Pictures of wartime submarines surfacing at the North pole somewhat undermine your boilerplate claim as regards sea ice too. It cannot at this point be proven that there is anything remotely unprecendented or severe in the reduction of the summer sea ice minimum, even in recent history. Nor can the strangely geographically selective properties of CO2 as pushed by alarmists be explained, especially as regards the differences between the poles. Please don’t insult my intelligence by firing off more model-driven paleoclimate ‘studies’- they are not worth the straws they clutch (as amply demonstrated in the recently exposed internal conversations between climate diviners).

@ur momisugly Getting Warmer:
Here’s a comment I wrote for a thread on Forbes about Arctic ice, but which didn’t get posted, probably due to having too many links or being too long. Its main point is that atmospheric temperature changes are unlikely to be the main drivers of the recent decline in ice extent. There are other likely drivers–and the warmist alarmist-propagandists know about them, but choose not to mention them.
==============
Regardless of the precise extent of ice-volume reduction, there are two reasons it doesn’t necessarily indicate an alarming degree of unnatural global warming—or even any at all. First, it may be the result of natural variations in the wind. Here’s a WUWT thread about that, followed by a WUWT comment that gives links supporting that interpretation:
—–

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/21/peer-reviewed-paper-wind-contributes-to-arctic-sea-ice-decline/
justthefactswuwt says:
June 28, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.” including in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/22/wind-sea-ice-loss-arctic
this 2011 paper submitted to The Cryosphere by L. H. Smedsrud, et al.;
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011-print.pdf
used “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25% larger than during the 1960’s.”
Additionally this paper;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C3508%3AFSIFAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
found that:
“Observations reveal a strong correlation between the ice fluxes through the Fram Strait and the cross-strait air pressure difference.”
“Although the 1950s and 1990s stand out as the two decades with maximum flux variability, significant variations seem more to be the rule than the exception over the whole period considered.”
“A noticeable fall in the winter air pressure of 7 hPa is observed in the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea during the last five decades.”
“The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”
(End WUWT comment)

Second, the decrease may be due to natural variation in ocean currents, as this WUWT-comment contends:

Dave Wendt says:
August 5, 2010 at 2:36 am
1] Rigor and Wallace 2004 suggests that a prime influence in the decline in ice age and thickness in the Arctic was a paradigm shift in the state of the Beaufort Gyre and the TransPolar Drift that occurred at the end of the Eighties. This is the commentary they included for the sea ice animation they included with the paper:
—-
This animation of the age of sea ice shows:
1.) A large Beaufort Gyre which covers most of the Arctic Ocean during the 1980s, and a transpolar drift stream shifted towards the Eurasian Arctic. Older, thicker sea ice (white ice) covers about 80% of the Arctic Ocean up to 1988. The date is shown in the upper left corner.
2.) With the step to high-AO conditions in 1989, the Beaufort Gyre shrinks and is confined to the corner between Alaska and Canada. The Transpolar Drift Stream now sweeps across most of the Arctic Ocean, carrying most of the older, thicker sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait (lower right). By 1990, only about 30% of the Arctic Ocean is covered by older thicker sea ice.
3.) During the high-AO years that follow (1991 and on), this younger thinner sea ice is shown to recirculated back to the Alaskan coast where extensive open water has been observed during summer.
The age of sea ice drifting towards the coast explains over 50% of the variance in summer sea ice extent (compared to less than 15% of the variance explained by the seasonal redistribution of sea ice, and advection of heat by summer winds).
—
This is an updated version of that animation created by Rigor:

R&W suggest that recirculation of older sea ice from along the Canadian Archipelago, where it now ends up at summer minimum, back toward the Alaskan coast is a strong determinant factor in the continuing decline of ice age and thickness.
If you watch the animation a few times, the drift pattern of the buoys illustrates how the smaller radius BG circulates the ice from along the coast and delivers it almost tangential to the TPD which is running in close alignment to the Prime Meridian. Once in the TPD the ice is expedited out through the Fram.
Based on this information I would suggest that there will not be strong rebound in the summer minimum until the BG returns to a pattern close to what prevailed in the Eighties.
From what I’ve seen the BG is not really well understood and there seem to be a number of factors suggested as influencing it with no clear winner, but most sharing the characteristic of not being controlled by or corollated with anthropogenic CO2.
(End WUWT comment)

There are additional comments and links arguing for other variations in current that could be responsible for the changes seen in the Arctic, but these two should be sufficient to discredit any implicit contention that the decrease in ice-volume speaks for itself and that anyone who refuses to see it is a denier.