"…the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012"

Science is really going down hill. Do people like Serreze realize, or care, that they are lowering the standing of all scientists involved in the study of the climate, the atmosphere, the oceans, etc? Will Serreze at least publicly admit his scaremongering mistake, just as he quite publicly made an unqualified projection of gloom? I challenge him to do so.

Good article. I would not, though, use phrasing like “the elders of science” as that plays into the hands of some environmentalists who like to pretend to the public they are synonymous with science for the sake of the giant appeal to authority which is the bedrock of the CAGW movement. Like the Peter Gleick affair highlighted, they like to pretend to the public that their opponents are anti-science, when rather we skeptics support science. Real science is objective, honest advancement of human knowledge, and, of course, Anthony Watts, we both know how much (or not!) that applies to the CAGW movement.*
*(E.g. depicting http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/arctic-sea-ice-coverage-anomaly.jpg when the real history was rather http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif and as seen in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/ ).
There are many cases where the phrase “scientists say” in much media could be better replaced with “some environmentalists claim.” By now, some institutions have reached the point where the only individuals likely to try getting employment at such as a career are those who know they would have no qualms about maintaining the party line, and accordingly they have become dominated by environmentalist ideologues rather than real scientists.
I was just noticing the preceding in another context, nominally much different but part of the same general anti-growth ideological movement. I was recently reading a claim of “some scientists now believe that a ‘peak phosphorus’ will occur in 30 years” where the writers were implying science concludes such, when rather it is some environmentalists playing to mathematically illiterate ignorant audiences. (Such is actually an absurdity: Beyond the 71 billion tons of phosphorus reserves already inventoried according to an USGS estimate for extraction at about exactly current market prices, already hundreds of times current 0.2 billion tons/year global consumption, there is a practically unlimited amount of intermediate ores between such and the roughly around 30 million billion tons of phosphorus in Earth’s 3 * 10^19 ton crust at an average concentration of ~ 0.1%, where, for perspective, typical vegetation is only 0.03% to 0.2% phosphorus).
Science used to be synchronous –and still should be– with an unsaid vision of supporting real technological progress for advancement and expansion of the material prosperity of mankind, of promoting a positive future. Some major segments of the environmentalist movement, including those making CAGW claims (as well as many other anti-growth memes and falsehoods), are trying to make science synchronous in the public consciousness with a dystopian vision of the future. Only then would most people come to believe in their vision: one of encouraging and eventually enforcing “lower material consumption,” “lower energy consumption” (the long-winded phrases used to pretend not to say poverty), with the hardcore ideologues at heart against space colonization, etc.

Can’t find who said this (Einstein?) but it’s apposite…
‘When the experts are united in a point of view the layman would do well to believe that the opposite point of view may be mistaken.’
And it applies a fortiori when the experts have a political agenda.

A message from Antarctica…
“Hey, what about me? I’ve been gaining sea ice above normal for soooo long, and nobody cares. Hellooo??? You know, it’s always the Arctic, Arctic, Arctic!! When am I gonna gets some props? Sheeesh…”

Borenstein (the gullible)— again !!
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me !! “

Have I mentioned lately, that a PhD recall provision is desparately needed? I would now extend this to the need for an accreditation program like the P.Eng program for engineers, for any scientist being a recipient of (at a minimum) public grant funds for research, and for a removal of any employer as a grant administrator if any scientist in their employ loses their “P.Sc” by virtue of what effectively is academic fraud. While it’s important to maintain the realm of objectivity and freedom for science, it appears necessary, in the absence of actual objectivity and the presence of ethical failure, to begin the process to expunge those who cannot, or more egregiously, will not, embrace the necessary rigour that good science demands.

Now, now. To be fair, he never really defined what “could be nearly ice-free” means. For example, a 95% cover could be “nearly” I suppose.
/snark

Making “accurate” predictions certainly helps your career
“Mark Serreze is the director of NSIDC. In 2009, he succeeded Dr. Roger Barry, who retired from the post in 2008 after 31 years of service. Serreze, a senior research scientist at NSIDC since 2005, is also a full professor in the University of Colorado at Boulder Geography Department, and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). He studies Arctic climate, and the causes and global implications of climate change in the Arctic. Serreze is well known for his research on the declining sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean.”
http://nsidc.org/about/people.html
If you assume your research is solely on “declining ice cover”, how open will you be to objectively evaluating what is happening in the Arctic. He now has control over of those obtaining and analyzing the data and reporting the data.
We have to watch the Watchers.

May I recomment to people the following
http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=CEC7AE99-1
This gives detailed ice conditions in the Canadian Arctic. Last year the data started on 15th May. I think it might be worthwhile explaining why we only provide data for a short period of time; 6 months.
One of the important jobs of the Canadian icebreakers is to escort cargo ships supplying heavy goods to ports in the Canadian Arcitc. The season, and our resources, are both limited, so it is essential that the work be done with maximum efficiency. The planning process for 2012 is just beginning, so Environment Canada deploys the resources needed to get the detailed ice data about now. This process culminates in a supply convey getting the furthest north we go; Eureka in early September. So we only collect the data for 6 monhs of the year. However, this does cover the iconic NorthWest Passage.

Kaboom says:
May 13, 2012 at 5:31 am
It seems obvious to me that all post-Rio climate conferences should be held on a cruise ship at the north pole. In years when it cannot get there due to ice, we skip it.
Ohhhh, nonononono, the conferences are too vital to the health of Mama Gaia — when the ice prevents the ship from getting there, we drop them off on the edge and they can walk.
Guided, of course, by Pen Hadow…