This is not the best way to sway someone in an argument, but dang it, this issue is so full of people jumping off in the wrong direction that it makes suicidal lemmings seem shy, reserved, and steadfast in comparison. SLAPSHOT sent over a link on the GROWTH OF SEA ICE. That is correct, growth, of, sea, ice. But even this article has some of the most atrocious use of the written English language, and this criticism from a man who does not consider himself highly skilled in the art. Consider:
That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007.
That is correct, folks. The amount of sea ice apparently hit an historic low in 2007. HISTORIC! LOW! And Webster’s defines historic as:
a: famous or important in history <historic battlefields> b: having great and lasting importance <a historic occasion> c: known or established in the past <historic interest rates> d: dating from or preserved from a past time or culture <historic buildings> <historic artifacts>
So this sounds important, an HISTORIC LOW IN SEA ICE (doom, doom)! But the article itself points out that the vast history of recording the amount of global sea ice as been going on for nearly ten thousand, five hundred, ninety-two days. Indeed! The numerous bureaucrats in the sea ice amount measuring community have been collecting data on the amount of global sea ice in the seas all around the globe for nearly a whopping 30 years. For a total of thirty seasonal cycles it has been determined that the low point in thirty data samples should be considered a RECORD HISTORIC LOW. Mr. Fu has spend more time writing this article to this points than it would require him to analyze and reduce this data.
And here it the crusher in all of this. The source of all the doom and gloom about the impending man-made global wamring disaster are just computer models that keep getting it wrong:
Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can’t be explained by current theory. “The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?” Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.
“Not anticipated by any current climate model?” What the heck does that mean? The computer models are not anticipating correctly? I thought these models were created by the most brilliant minds! How could they have deceived us so, with their faulty computer models? What other predictions are they getting wrong? The predictions of an ever rising, Earth killing temperature increase? Of Obama’s ability to single handedly make the economy better?