Sanity Injection

Injecting a dose of sanity into your day’s news and current events.

Global sea ice back at 1979 levels

Posted by sanityinjection on January 5, 2009

One of the chief explanations global warming hysterics routinely give us for how fossil fuels are going to kill us all is that warmer temperatures will melt the polar ice caps, causing all sorts of tragic results, including the extermination of the poor helpless polar bears.

With this in mind, it is significant that a new report from the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois indicates that mean global sea ice levels have rebounded to the level they were at in 1979. As explains:

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn’t affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions. Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery…In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal’s numbers were increasing.

Of course, this is merely the latest in a series of findings indicating that the earth has in fact been cooling substantially over the last few years, coinciding with a major drop in solar activity and boosting the opinion held by a significant minority of climate scientists that climate change is mostly caused by natural cyclical phenomena and not by human activity. The global warming scare industry insists that this cooling is just a blip on the radar screen and that more severe warming lies ahead. However, not one of them predicted this cooling phase in any of their climate models.

The point here is not that man-made global warming is impossible or that there aren’t many good reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The point is that we have been repeatedly and deliberately lied to by those who have sought to convince us that it is an unquestionable scientific fact that man-made global warming is destroying the earth’s climate. Given the significant public policy matters affected by this question, this is not something to be glossed over with a shrug of the shoulders.

Maybe now we can develop a fossil fuels policy (as part of a more comprehensive national energy policy) that is based on real science and economics, rather than allowing science to be warped and twisted to create justifications for policies that a group of zealots have long wished to impose for ideological reasons of their own.


5 Responses to “Global sea ice back at 1979 levels”

  1. tubby said

    It sounds like you have been listening to the wrong people! No serious scientist should be shrugging his shoulders at the issue of climate change, nor at your findings. In fact, there were several reports (one of which written by a NASA scientist) during the Bush Administration which were filtered and changed to de-emphasize the dramatic nature of change the results indicated. The bottom line is there is still a warming trend happening. You even personally met a friend of mine, an atmospheric chemist post-doc at Harvard, who told you as much based on data he’d seen personally, not to mention numerous testimonies from colleagues.

    I’m sorry you continue to feel embattled by the Left on this subject. I’m sorry if Al Gore bothers you, but I’d suggest you stop letting him and his well-funded networks cloud your judgment of the real situation. (Besides, in my opinion all they are trying to do is make people and the government aware of the true affect fossil fuels have on the earth’s climate.)

    I’d rephrase one of your sentences from above to say:
    “The point is that we have been repeatedly and deliberately *educated* by those who have sought to *make their findings known* that man-made global warming is *changing* the earth’s climate”.

    My view is that if a cooling trend somewhat counters a proven man-made warming trend, that’s beside the point. I think if we are causing change at all, we have a responsibility to reverse that change. I’d also guess that good Christians and Biblical scholars would agree with that. We weren’t put on this Earth to do with it what we please. We were meant to live in harmony with it.

  2. sanityinjection said

    Tubby – It’s not so much the scientists I’m indicting, though some of them are certainly guilty of persecuting the infidels within their community who dared to dissent. The people I am most incensed about are the fearmongers – the same fearmongers who brought us the American heterosexual AIDS epidemic. The people who, like Al Gore, have absolutely no hesitation to deliberately lie to the American people in order to get us to do what they, the Enlightened Ones, know is best for us.

    The Left has had paroxyms of outrage over the idea that Bush lied to the country in order to get permission to wage war in Iraq. There is far less evidence of that than there is of a deliberate campaign of deception on global warming, yet somehow the outrage seems to be lacking.

    As for your friend the atmospheric chemist, he’s a perfect example of the problem. Instead of admitting what any honest scientist does, which is that the earth’s climate is an insanely complex system we are just beginning to understand, he pretends to have all the answers, and may even have come to believe it himself. How seriously would you take a meteorologist who told you he could predict with 100% certainty what the weather will be next month? And yet we are expected to keep a straight face as we are told what is going to happen 50, 100 years from now?

    If there were a proven man-made warming trend, then of course your conclusions follow quite logically. But since there is no such thing, your conclusions are unfounded. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that neither cooling nor warming trends are being primarily driven by human activity, but rather by natural cycles such as the level of solar activity. Any marginal effect humans have had is just that – marginal.

    I fear you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid on this one, but I think that future research will continue to prove me right.

  3. tubby said

    You are right – “proven” is a strong word; I meant that my friend said there is significant data to suggest evidence of such a warming trend. I’m under no illusions that he is one of these insular, ivory-tower, know-it-all simplistic thinkers you assume he might be. Rather, of all people he is one of the most overly analytical people I’ve met, someone who carefully examines all aspects of a problem before tackling it. I’m pretty sure he would never come to such conclusions haphazardly. But we are arguing interpretations here, so this will get us nowhere.

    As for the “campaign of deception” point: Wouldn’t you rather have the freedom to agree or disagree with a such a campaign thrown at you by a privately-funded group whose interests were transparent, rather than by the executive branch of the government — which has massive control over environmental funding priorities — based on its biased interpretation of scientific findings? This distinction is what troubles me.

    Finally, cooling and warming trends are being driven by natural cycles like solar activity, yes, but my point is that they can *also* be driven by human activity. (Why must it be one or the other?) If evidence suggests that human activity is *one of many factors* contributing to global warming, isn’t it in our best interest to try to reverse this activity?

    Now excuse me while I grab a napkin for the Kool-Aid all over my mouth 😉

  4. sanityinjection said

    Well, since the “campaign of deception” people and the executive branch are about to become one and the same, you need no longer be troubled by the distinction 🙂

    Yes, I agree that if man-made activity is contributing to a greenhouse effect, then there’s value in doing something about it. In fact, even if there is no greenhouse effect, there are still a host of reasons to move away from burning hydrocarbons. But the question is, how important is it and at what cost, and how fast do we need to go? Should we hamstring efforts to revive the economy and create new jobs in order to appease the Al Gores of the world? Should we tie the hands of the American auto industry in recovering by forcing them to submit to standards their foreign competitors don’t have to abide by?

    All I am asking is that in weighing these priorities, the scales not be artificially tilted by the systematic depositing of a pack of lies on one side.

  5. sanityinjection said

    Here’s a great commentary on the many scientific studies that have to be ignored in order to pretend that the earth is warming, not cooling:,25197,24934655-7583,00.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: