Polar Ice Caps receding or expanding

vanity | December 9, 2009 | vanity

[Praxeologue]

vanity

[shibumi]

Me see - but me no believe.

[dfwgator]

The only constant on this planet is change.

[shibumi]

Now that’s the kind of science that should be getting the headlines.

.....and it makes sense, too.....

[dfwgator]

Good Heavens Miss Sakomoto you’re beautiful!

[Paul Pierett]

Thank you,

Paul

[Praxeologue]

Investors Business daily cited http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ as evidence of sea ice expansion. I visited the site (funded by NOOA) and see the opposite. Factoring out a summer 2007 enhanced melt, we seem to be back to a 2007/2008 trajectory that is outside (on the downside) of the margin of error of the average for 1979/2000. IBD's other source is the aforementioned Heartland Institute: nothing against them: they are an advocacy group, not an objective source.

I would like to re-post one of the links that have been helpfully posted above and start a new thread, but I cannot find helpful data on either ice extent or mass from any source. JAXA is closest, but falls short.

I am left with telling my "group" that the last few years are an anomaly. BS, they will say.

So that you know, I am in Canada, where nobody gets Fox News, which is 1/2 of the U.S. viewership. Boomers here, by and large, still get their news from television and newspapers. Skeptics are deniers. Black is white. I thought the Internet would have some useful sales tools, but thus far, I haven't run across any. Which leads me to be concerned about government regulation, and Canada's tar sands in particular.

[Thickman]

No offense, but you obviously did not review that board closely. It is dominated by skeptics and voluminous information and links which can provide one with great knowledge.

[Praxeologue]

Thickman,

Perhaps I couldn't navigate on that site properly. Thank you for the link. The sites that I ultimately found most useful are: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ , and http://wattsupwiththat.com/ .

My fundamental PR problem is the Arctic ice cap images. AGW is a very complex issue due to the volume of misinformation and lies generated by its proponents. However, discussing the issue, with a business associate for five minutes over a coffee, for example, inevitably ends with their disbelief that the images could be a lie. I'm getting better at it, but it's tough. This may be unique to Canada, but afterward I am considered suspect, which does not encourage people to speak up.