SUBSCRIBE NOW
and SAVE 87%

Help
|

Connect

|

Sign up
|

Log in

Log in with your social account:

Or, you can log in or sign up using Forbes.

New Posts +1 posts this hour

Most Popular America's Dirtiest
Cities

Lists Most Powerful People

Video Newly-Powerful People

James
Taylor, Contributor

I write about energy and environment issues.

Follow Following
Unfollow

Op/Ed

|

9/19/2012 @ 12:14PM |305,740 views

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

530
comments, 34 called-out
Comment
Now

Follow Comments Following
Comments Unfollow Comments

Comment
Now

Follow Comments Following
Comments Unfollow Comments

Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down

Good
News For Polar Bears Is Bad News for Global Warming Alarmists
James Taylor Contributor

Don't
Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent
James Taylor Contributor

Antarctic Iceberg (Photo credit: NOAA's National Ocean
Service)

Editor’s note:  An update from the author has been added to this
article on September 20, 2012.

Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most
amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of
this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to
retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.

National Public Radio (NPR) published an article
on its website last month claiming, “Ten years ago, a piece of ice the size of
Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off Antarctica. Two other
massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a
few years before. The events became poster children for the effects of global
warming. … There’s no question that unusually warm air triggered the final
demise of these huge chunks of ice.”

NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic
sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice
33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout
2012.

Indeed, none of the mainstream media are covering this important story. A Google News search of the
terms Antarctic, sea ice and record turns up not a single article on the
Antarctic sea ice record. Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for
Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear
and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low.

Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is
growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me.

Update:  To provide more perspective on global warming and
Antarctica, I would like to update this column with some additional
information:

As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains,
new data show ice mass is accumulating on the Antarctic continent as well as in
the ocean surrounding Antarctica. The new data contradict an assertion by global
warming alarmists that the expanding Antarctic sea ice is coming at the expense
of a decline in Antarctic continental ice.

The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining
ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the
Antarctic Peninsula (see here,
for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice
loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice
is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent
as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass.

Interestingly, a new NASA study
finds Antarctica once supported vegetation similar to that of present-day
Iceland.

“The southward movements of rain bands associated with a warmer climate in
the high-latitude southern hemisphere made the margins of Antarctica less like a
polar desert, and more like present-day Iceland,” a co-author of the NASA study
reports.

530
comments, 34 called-out
Comment
Now

Follow Comments Following
Comments Unfollow Comments

Comment
Now

Follow Comments Following
Comments Unfollow Comments

Print

Report Corrections

Reprints & Permissions

Post Your Comment

Cancel
reply

Post Your Reply

Please log
in or sign
up to comment.

Enter Your Comment

Submit
Comment

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find
particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes
network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Called-Out

Expand All Comments

Follow Comments Following
Comments Unfollow Comments

Daniel
Malavassi 2 months ago

Wow, talked about bias. Clearly this person doesn’t understand the
difference between “Climate Change” and “Global Warming”.

Maybe next time, a little less judgement of the main stream media, and a
little more fact check and research

Permalink
Flag

Reply

John Hayes
2 months ago

When antarctic ice increases but arctic ice decreases, when hurricanes
increase some years but decrease others, when there is either more or less
rain, and when temperatures in some areas of the world increase while others
decrease, those are ALL signs of climate change?

Now I get it!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Greg
Barton 2 months ago

Hey Danny Boi, I think you should stick with fire:bad and food:good and let
the adults talk here.

LIB FAIL

Permalink
Flag

Reply

onejn416
2 months ago

If you took away the liberal media that uses the words “global warming” in
connection with “climate change” then most of the reports world not exist.
James has his fact right and you have been clearly biased by the
media.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Charles Bird 2 months ago

You missed your calling, Dan, time to move to politics.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Gary Overton 2 months ago

Their both the same. They had to change the name to “Climate Change”
because the earth actually cooled a bit and has remained stable for a few
years now. Rather than admitting their data may be flawed they changed the
name. Now they can blame all weather events on CO2. I even saw an article a
couple years ago that blamed increased prostitution in Indonesia on Climate
Change/Gorebal Warming.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

FasterJags 2 months ago

The fact that there is record Antarctic sea ice doesn’t fit the Journolist
Narrative so of course it can’t be reported.

There is a reason why “journalists” rank with used car salesmen and members
of Congress in disapproval by the public. All three make their living through
gross deception.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Freedom Calhoun
2 months ago

If the globe was warming, this would, by definition, be a climate
change.

If you were following the narriative, the words “climate change” only came
into vouge when the “evidence” for “global warming” became rather thin.
It
leaves room for the “I hate humans group.” to point at ANY change up, down,
dry, wet, etc. to be caused by humans by default. It is an obvious and stupid
propoganda effort by the idiotic alarmists.

The climate is, has and always will be changing, before and after humans.
To believe anything else is the height of idiocy.

Your obvious lack of understanding of the English language takes away from
your outrage.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Benjamine Dover
2 months ago

Re Indonesian source of “Global Climate Change”

Is it due to friction?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

economic freedom
2 months ago

The author specifically quoted from an NPR article that mentioned GLOBAL
WARMING, not the vaguer term “climate change”. Since you’re wearing leftwing
blinders and purposely chose not to see the quote, I’ll repost it for you
(remove your blinders first before reading):

[QUOTE FROM NPR] The events became poster children for the effects of
GLOBAL WARMING. … There’s no question that unusually warm air triggered the
final demise of these huge chunks of ice.[END QUOTE FROM NPR]

Additionally, the environmentalist left changed its activist-rhetoric from
“the perils of global warming caused by human activity such as industry,
economic growth, and capitalism” to the much vaguer truism “the concerns we
should have regarding climate change.”

Got news for you. Climate — by definition — does nothing BUT change. It’s
been changing for the last billion years (remember we had some ice-ages in the
distant past and then it got warmer?); it’s changing at this very moment; and
it will continue to change for the next billion years. Most change is driven
by that big hot ball in the sky called the “sun” (ever hear of it?), as well
as water vapor mainly in the form of our atmosphere’s cloud layer (you’ve
probably never heard of “clouds” either.) Try looking UP.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

GNAC
2 months ago

What? Are you married to the idea of AGW? How would you dissemenate the
information that there is record ice at the south pole? Talk about bias –
yours is showing!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Angelique S 2 months ago

“If you were following the narriative, the words “climate change” only came
into vouge when the “evidence” for “global warming” became rather thin.”
Or
maybe it was because the word “warming” seemingly gives people all the cahones
they need to run around screaming that it is a hoax everytime it
snows.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Theodore Warne 2 months ago

@FasterJags…and what do you do for a living? I’m a journalist for the Air
Force, so now I’m the same as a Used Car Salesman? At least learn how to spell
before you bash somebody.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

FasterJags 2 months ago

Google Journolist (not a mispelling) to get more context.

BTW. according to Gallup only 26% of Americans feel that Journalists rate
high when asked about their honesty and ethical standards.

But take heart – you do rate higher than both Congress and used car
salesmen.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

barrycooper
2 months ago

The difference is “truth” and “lie”. One does not have to think too long or
hard to realize that a principle element in warming is sustained temperature
increase. When it does up and down it is what we specialists call
“weather”.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Zach
Peterson 2 months ago

Climate Change is what scientist call the changing of climate.

Global Warming is the buzzword used by morons to describe the same
thing.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Lysol Motorola 2 months ago

What a spectacular DODGE. “Climate Change”?? “Global Warming”?? What next,
“Unpredictable Weather”??? This type of sophistry is exactly the same method
used by the so called climate scientists (many of whom were social scientists,
mathematicians and other NON-meteorologists) used to come up with the biggest
hoax ever.
Rather than try to drill through that thick skull of yours, I
suggest that you just go to the web site amoreconvenienttruth.com Remeber, the
truth shall set you free, not a consensus based on false data and a left wing
political agenda.
As for your snide comment about fact check and research,
I got a chuckle that one taking your point of view would care about research.
Even the UN (Gasp!!!) has discredited many of the myths and lies of the
religion of man made global warming.
ANyway, what’s the problem if the
climate changes, or the globe warms. Humanity does better when it is warmer. I
know, I know. Sea levels. But they have been rising for the last 20,000 years
and have come up almost 400 feet. Problem with that is the rate of rise has
really slowed down in the last 5,000 years. Most of what upsets people like
you is the Goldilocks Syndrome. You believe the earth is “just right”. How in
hell did we get so lucky to be living in a century out of 40,000 years that is
so freaking perfect. Not too hot. Not too cold. How arrogant. How temporary.
It is going to get hotter and it is going to get colder regardless of what we
do.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Marion
Tinsley 2 months ago

Daniel, I think you need to do a little fact checking. The global warming
crowd use both terms. Weather patterns have always changed and always will by
a force much greater than man- the sun!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Stephen Lee 2 months ago

Sure, we understand ‘climate change.’ It’s the new weasel term that lets
any change in the weather…hotter, colder, sunnier, cloudier, wetter, drier…be
attributed to human actions. Isn’t that cool!? Never mind simple terms like
‘global warming’ that could actually be measured.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Jerry
Stafford Jr 2 months ago

If your reply was not a joke, please go look up the term useful
idiot…..

Permalink
Flag

Reply

michael farns 2 months ago

Its funny how it was called global warming until they couldnt hide the fact
that earth temps havent risen since 98. now the new cool kid term is climate
change.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

TulsaMikel 2 months ago

He just explained you can’t find this information on a Google search. NPR
mentioned both low ice records that were many years ago with out mentioning
the record high which was present at the time. They don’t mention the ice has
continued to build sense recording started. The Bias you mentioned isn’t
coming from the side struggling to get its information to the people. It comes
from the side waging war on capitalism, and big business, and serves the exact
same purpose as the occupiers on wall street, or anyone claiming to be part of
the 99%. It’s all the same people. It’s all the same fight.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Vision
2 months ago

Daniel,
Obviously you are being sarcastic because 1) You used your real
name 2) You believe in the main stream media 3) you act like you didn’t
realize that they changed the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”
because every time they would picket or have a giant “Global Warming” gaylaa
the weather gods would make it snow!
Funny though the whole idea behind
climate change is how the earth is warming because of carbon footprints and
cow farts! Don’t you agree

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Anthony
Cila 2 months ago

Was ur Gorebal Warming an allusion to GOREBULL (as in BS) Warming to slip
it past the censors??? If so BRAVO.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

J L 2
months ago

Wow, talk about bias. Clearly Daniel Malavassi doesn’t understand the
relationship of the sun’s effect on the wobble and tilt of the earth on its
axis where the Northern-hemisphere gets more sunlight even in the winter than
the Southern-hemisphere.

Maybe next time, a little less stupidity and a little more research on the
topic would open your freakin’ eyes.

“Climate change” and “global warming” are politically motivated agendas to
scare you into believe the world is going to end. It’s kinda like
religion…

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Dan
Feerst 2 months ago

Do you know that humans have no control over it, and that a world tax the
Left would love to collect along with smashing capitalism (in Western
Democracies) can’t stop it?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Dan
Feerst 2 months ago

Do you know that humans have no control over it and that a world tax the
left would love to collect along with smashing capitalism in Western
Democracies, would have no effect in stopping it?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Floyd R Turbo
(American) 2 months ago

If you’re a “Journalist” for the Air Force you’re worse than a used car
salesman.

The military are NOT allowed to disagree with the commander in chief – who
is a liar – so YOU have no credibility whatsoever.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/obama-to-military-pc-is-more-important-than-your-safety

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/03/should-marine-who-criticized-obama-on-facebook-be-punished.html

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Karl
Spencer 2 months ago

Zach, is was the far left that initially called it Global Warming until the
earth started cooling during this Progressive Push. Then they changed it to
Climate Change. If yesterday it rained and today it was completely wouldn’t
that be climate change? You progressives make me laugh!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Cipher Sru
2 months ago

And the Climate Change is being caused by what? It is not all man made. Not
even most of it is. Have you looked at the periodic sun cycle data? Do that,
then come back and be righteous again, this time with facts…

Permalink
Flag

Reply

fel121
2 months ago

FACTS! That sounds like some of that mealy mouth liberal talk to
me!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

scottyb
2 months ago

Hmmm…pointing out that the mainstream media has a one-sided view of global
warming, er, global cooling, er, climate change–yeah, that’s the ticket–to
promote their left-wing bias, is now called being judgemental.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Robert
Corkran 2 months ago

O.K. if the ice has been steadily growing at the south pole…..how is that
warming? Are we blaming el nino? Whether you choose to believe it or not,
there is absolutely nothing we as billions of humans can do to affect the
change of seasons. One volcano (a natural occurance) anywhere on the planet
can put more crud (i.e. carbon, sulfur, dust, noxious chemical structures,
etc.) into our atmosphere in a year than all of what we, (the human race) do
in a century. Therefore, the media, headed up by Saint Gore (I’ve made a
killing on selling carbon credits), who have in fact rammed global warming
down everyone’s throats for years, is biased and will remain so until they
remember that a reporter’s primary goal is to report news without taking a
side. Pundits, and editorialists are allowed to take sides because that’s
their job. If you don’t think the mainstream media isn’t biased, well, your
comment shows YOUR judgmental attitude of anything that goes against that same
bias…..

Permalink
Flag

Reply

shrugged 2 months ago

And neither do any of the idiots of “global cooling” . . .er . . “Global
warming” . . . er . . . “Climate change” . . . . .

I continually hear about the earth is warming and greenhouse gasses are
collecting in the atmosphere and the planet if slowly heating – even though we
don’t always feel it. This is GARBAGE –And a HOAX.

Please, just go away.

Thank you James for providing some push-back with this article.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Gene
Meacham 2 months ago

I don’t no where you got your data, Quote:

“On September 16, Arctic sea ice appeared to have reached its minimum
extent for the year of 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square
miles). This is the lowest seasonal minimum extent in the satellite record
since 1979 and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent.
The sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and
winter.”

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Chuck Dewey
2 months ago

I think what the writer was trying to say is that when facts come out that
don’t promote the man made climate change theory that the liberal media
ignores the data. It is called selective reporting, only report on things that
support your own point of view.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Anon
2 months ago

Daniel says: “Wow, talked about bias. Clearly this person doesn’t
understand the difference between “Climate Change” and “Global
Warming”.”
No, “clearly” Daniel — it’s you who have the problem…apparently
you haven’t kept up on the twists and turns of the propaganda machine you
support. “Climate change” was just the Wonderland phrase your folks
focus-grouped and put out there to replace “Global Warming”.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Kyle Witherspoon
2 months ago

Exactly. Doesn’t this ‘reporter’ realize that once the Global Warming jig
was up, we still needed new taxes on people, so we tagged normal changing
weather patterns as “climate change?” He’s not helping the agenda to tax the
middle class into oblivion. What a populist jerk.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Brad
Lillmars 2 months ago

I read the article exactly opposite than you. The whole thrust was on
climate change and not global warming. The unanswered question is the cause of
the shift.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Theodore Pride 2 months ago

I hope you were being sarcastic. The Global Warming crowd has been
constantly hammering people with scare stories about how the ice caps are
melting and the seas rising. Then when it was discovered they were knowingly
altering and fabricating their “evidence” for this, and that the Earth was
actually in a cooling phase again, they refactored “Global Warming” to
“Climate Change” so they could get away with STILL demonizing CO2, even though
there’s no scientific basis for man-caused climate change of any kind, and the
whole “green” industry is only there to collect taxpayer subsidies.

The mainstream media is supporting a fraudulent viewpoint.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Chris Beall
2 months ago

Clearly you do not understand that “Climate Change” is merely what you
alarmists starting calling “global warming” once the doctored data was
debunked and you realized nobody was buying this garbage.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

dallasdunlap 2 months ago

KarlSpencer et al – The earth is warming. Global warming leads to climate
change. They aren’t exactly the same thing.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

D Allan
2 months ago

Well do tell. What is the difference? I know of difference between climate
change and weather patterns, but global warming and climate change are
synonymous terms according to most Left Wing the world is warming
nuts.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Aaron Smith
2 months ago

It is well known that the liberal press constantly points to the shrinking
ice in the arctic as evidence of ‘climate change.’ It is perfectly acceptable
to ask them why ice is growing on the other side of the globe.

Do we really believe that the climate would stop changing if man suddenly
disappeared from the planet? If you believe in man-made climate change, what
do you believe? That the other is getting warmer? Colder? Both? Neither? A
rational hypothesis must be presented – otherwise, it’s just an uninformed
opinion.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Sidney
Johnson 2 months ago

Climate change? When you get caught lyin’…redefine it, rename it and try
again. A fool must never admit he’s been fooled!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Dave Davis 2 months ago

Ah, “climate change”. So you can have it both ways. You don’t even have to
figure out if it’s getting colder or warmer! That’s great science for
you.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

dallasdunlap 2 months ago

D Allen – It’s simple enough to understand. Heat is trapped by CO2 causing
the earth to absorb more energy than it would otherwise. This causes the earth
to get warmer. This is confirmed by instrumental temperature measurements. The
trapping of infrared is confirmed by satellites. That’s your global
warming.
A warmer atmosphere leads to an atmosphere that can hold more
water. That means more frequent and longer droughts and more torrential
rainfall and snowfall events.
But it’s still early in the process. What we
are seeing now are more frequent and overall hotter heat waves. It’s still too
early to attribute precipitaion anomalies.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Russ Ramey
2 months ago

The entire world has called out the MSM and they are dying out more so than
the Polar Bears. When you keep changing the game,eventually we just ignore you
as spoiled little brats who can’t get their way…conservation by all means, but
statist re-distribution to salve your guilty progressive conscience? Not
hardly, we will keep the fruits of OUR labor, we built it…

Permalink
Flag

Reply

John Cox
2 months ago

explain the difference please.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

James
Heilman 2 months ago

That’s right chicken little changed his argument; now it’s “the ground is
rising! the ground is rising”.
And get your own facts straight. The
properly question is: does climate change have significant anthropogenic
causes? The question still remains why aren’t the environmental communist in
the media talk about this fact.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

ounceoflogic 2 months ago

Fasterjags: You insult car salesmen by grouping them with Journalistas and
Congressionals.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

D G 2
months ago

Then explain the difference to us. And also explain how growing antarctic
sea ice has no bearing on either.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Daniel and Rachael
Wynn 2 months ago

Talked about bias. Talked about brokened english Mr. Malavassi.

You think you’re so smart because you know that two different terms exist
to describe the left-wing plot to use the weather to distract voters from real
issues. Please explain to me the difference between the two terms then since
you’re so smart.

My understanding is that “global warming” is the term they used to
originate the scam, and when they realized that americans aren’t foolish
enough to believe that the earth’s climate is in an eternally warming trend
caused by humans, they changed the name to “climate change.” That way, they’re
never going to be wrong because the climate is changing.

Either way, it’s obvious to everyone with a brain that the climate is
changing. It is also obvious to everyone with a brain that the climate on this
earth, as well as the climate of other planets, changes over time. It gets
hot. Then it gets cold. That’s why we had an Ice Age, and yet we don’t
currently live in an Ice Age. Wow, amazing!

To think that some scientists’ charts of global temperatures of the last
few decades demonstrates fully the cause for this change? No!

Meanwhile lets focus on an important subject like balancing our budget and
fixing our trade imbalance and economy.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Daniel and Rachael
Wynn 2 months ago

Talked about bias. Talked about brokened english Mr. Malavassi.

You think you’re so smart because you know that two different terms exist
to describe the left-wing plot to use the weather to distract voters from real
issues. Please explain to me the difference between the two terms then since
you’re so smart.

My understanding is that “global warming” is the term they used to
originate the scam, and when they realized that americans aren’t foolish
enough to believe that the earth’s climate is in an eternally warming trend
caused by humans, they changed the name to “climate change.” That way, they’re
never going to be wrong because the climate is changing.

Either way, it’s obvious to everyone with a brain that the climate is
changing. It is also obvious to everyone with a brain that the climate on this
earth, as well as the climate of other planets, changes over time. It gets
hot. Then it gets cold. That’s why we had an Ice Age, and yet we don’t
currently live in an Ice Age. Wow, amazing!

To think that some scientists looked at charts of global temperatures over
the last few decades and then tried to tie those changes to humans is
absurd!

Yes the climate is changing, like it always has. No Mr. Malavassi, you
don’t know why it is changing nor can you do anything about it.

I totally agree that we should take care of our planet and conserve what we
can, but that’s because we love our earth, not because we’re causing our
climate to change for the worse.

Meanwhile lets focus on an important subject like balancing our budget and
fixing our trade imbalance and economy.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

R.Theguywho 2 months ago

O.K. Daniel, now take your cool-aid and climb back up Al Gore’s
tail
end.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Benjamin Brown 2 months ago

Climate Change? That’s the name that Global Warming got changed to when
greenies realized that none of their hypothesis held water, right? The thing
that has been happening every minute of every day of ever year that the planet
has existed, right?

No, but you’re right. The planet has been here for 4.5 billion years, but
100 years is a sufficient sample size to declare a global catastrophe and
cause the deaths of millions by forcing draconian changes in lifestyles
(Ironically, the ones that would do are the poor in Africa, not the well-fed,
entitled American “activists” pushing things they don’t understand.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Sean
2 months ago

You spelled “judgement” wrong so now I have to take you even less seriously
than when I read your first sentence.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Dennis
2 months ago

Hmmmm, yeah, you might be right. What does this person know?…. Oh wait!
Here is his profile….
James Taylor
I am senior fellow for environment
policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment &
Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing
on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN
Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national
radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually
every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and
majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from
Syracuse University.

Maybe he does know something??? Gosh, I just don’t know…….

Permalink
Flag

Reply

rsborchardt 2 months ago

Global Warming = BS
Climate Change = BS

They ARE the same thing

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Peter Parker 2 months ago

Ooh! Ooh! I know the difference! Pick me!!! Ahem….Climate Change is what
the left wing loony alarmists started calling it when it was obvious that the
earth was NOT, in fact, globally warming. So now, no matter whether it’s warm,
hot, cool or cold, Climate Change is happening, a classic example of
CYA.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

wesdavisforbes 2 months ago

Dude, let it go… set those feelings free. CC or GW… either way, it’s not
your fault. We need to be good stewards of our planet, but we are not to blame
when the planet “changes”.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Dave Davis 2 months ago

Hmm, “climate change”. This way, if it’s a little warmer, or little cooler,
you still win. You don’t even have to know which way it’s going, what
science!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Cedar Edge 2 months ago

Dan, go back under your rock

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Rene de
los Rios 2 months ago

Yeah and YOU obviously don’t have a clue what the difference is between
“Climate Change” and “Man-Made Climate Change”. Maybe next time a little less
judgment of the skeptics and a little more fact check and research.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

MICHAEL KIRBY 2 months ago

ha ha ha ha….is is not what is is…..dummy.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Bart Man
2 months ago

Hi, I don’t understand the difference either. Could you explain it to me?
Thanks.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

hewood jablomy 2 months ago

buddy, “climate change” is another one of the language subversions that is
a hallmark of MSM and the left (see also: abortion/womens health care, illegal
immigrants/undocumented citizens). for years we heard about global warming and
its perils, until it was shown one day that *HUH, WHATS THAT?!* its built on a
lot of junk science and an agenda. for a brief time they attempted to claim
that “well, with global warming, things can get colder too” until they
realized how monumentally stupid and unsellable that sounded and it became
“climate change.” so then in any situation they are correct, people are
causing all these problems, and we need to restrict consumer choice in
automobiles.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Pappadave 2 months ago

What nonsense. You eco-morons have been screaming “global warming” for the
last 25 years. Now when there’s concrete proof that it simply isn’t happening,
you decide to switch the meme to “climate change.” Of COURSE the climate is
changing. It’s been changing back and forth for milllions of years. The point
is, it’s not OUR “fault” it’s changing and there’s nothing we can do to stop
it or enhance it either one. You could use some “fact checking”
yourself.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

pete chproject 2 months ago

@Daniel Malavassi what you call “climate change” Is the new name of the
same bull crap the mainstream media was calling “Global warming”. Their
predictions were not matching reality so they had to rename it to “climate
change”. Same crap, different name. And guess what, the world has gone through
climate change since the beginning of its existence. So what is it they want?
That is what we have to look at. Bottom line…control…to force change so they
can get more control.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Pappadave 2 months ago

Of all “greenhouse gasses,” by FAR the most plentiful is water vapor–about
97% of the total. CO2 accounts for about 1.7% followed by CFC’s and various
other gasses accounting for the remainder–less than 2%. If you wish to have a
REAL effect on “global warming,” why not attack water vapor. You’re FAR more
likely to have an effect on the climate by reducing water vapor in the
atmosphere than by reducing CO2. Oh! That would kill everything and
everybody??? Well, that seems to be the wish of the “global warming” bunch
anyway, so why not?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

loueegee 2 months ago

It’s interesting how we were pouned with the term “Global Warming” when we
can prove the earth is not warming they conveniently changed it to “Climate
Change”, knowing that all things change, they are able to keep their agenda
alive. Let’s just hope we see Change in the Whitehouse too!!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Michael Lohr 2 months ago

The call to action was “Global Warming” 5 years ago, Then it shifted to
Climate change, when not all the data squared up.

Bottom line, The earth is ALWAYS is in some state of climate change,
whether it be Global or local. There is no evidence of it ever not
changing.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Greg Depta
2 months ago

Wow….clearly you don’t understand that the Global warming movement’s name
was change to climate change…..when they were called out because nothing was
getting warmer.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

S L
2 months ago

Yes, we must consider the feelings of the ice and completely modify our
behavior even if it means human suffering.

BOTTOM LINE: Humans are not responsible for climate change, global warming
or any other weather phenomenon, well, other than what HAARP intentionally
produces, but of course, your beloved media won’t do any due diligence on it
or at least report it. Most media these days are negligent, stupid, or
evil.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

steven adams 2 months ago

I know the difference!!! Global warming is what you call it when things
heat up. Climate change is what you call it when it’s not!
Right?????

Permalink
Flag

Reply

bobby kirsch 2 months ago

Hardly bias, he’s stating facts. According to the alarmists we should have
all drowned by now due to sea ice melting.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Youngjik
Choi 2 months ago

enlighten me then will ya

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Youngjik
Choi 2 months ago

enlighten us?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Youngjik
Choi 2 months ago

enlighten us on the difference? Fact check and research? Here is a climate
scientist testimony before the Canadian
Senate.
http://youtu.be/hDKSkBrI-TM

Permalink
Flag

Reply

WMEdelmann 2 months ago

So when you disagree with a story’s findings you change the author’s tenet
and call it something else? He has asserted factual scientific, proof which
purports to disprove ‘Global Warming’ theories, and you change his tenet to
say that his story was about ‘Global Climate Change’ which was only brought
about when ‘Global Warming’ was doubted five or six years ago.

Interesting how patently foolish you revisionists can become.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Dandyman 2 months ago

Who does not understand? It began as so called Global Warming and when that
term didn’t take hold with the masses they changed the word to Climate Change
and then made a poorly designed attempt to dupe the masses into paying for
temperature changes while they (the alarmists) rake in the money from the
scam. Problem is it isn’t working out because the masses would rather eat than
go back to the horse and buggy wild wild west.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Dave
Fogarty 2 months ago

Heartland Institute…funded by BP, Exxon and the Koch Brothers among
others…hmmmm maybe a bit biased? I wonder why these companies would try and
make you people think burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment?

These guys are also funded by Phillip Morris and in the 90s did some
studies on the safe practice of smoking!

Nothing worse than an academic getting paid for his work to refute the rest
of the scientific community!

Stay Classy Forbes!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Reid Bloomfield
2 months ago

In the 70′s it was Global Cooling, in the 90′s it was Global Warming, now
it’s just Climate Change. Decades of stupidity. No wonder people are
confused!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Richard40 2 months ago

What in the world is this commenter talking about. Whether you call it
global warming, or climate change, this article correctly states that most of
the climate change/global warming people, and their MSM supporters, have been
telling us for years that the antartic ice sheet was rapidly melting, and now
we find out it is not, and is in fact growing. How in the world is that
biased???

Permalink
Flag

Reply

mralarmistman 2 months ago

The term “global warming” confused people because the climate is not a
linear system. Just because the greenhouse effect is increased doesn’t mean it
gets warmer everywhere all the time. The term “climate change” is a better one
to use.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Turdito Bandito 2 months ago

The MSM got off soft in this article if anything, they don’t understand
whats going on at all, or they don’t report as such. They often report the
issue and make it sound as if all the sea ice globally is melting, and its
not.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Turdito Bandito 2 months ago

further more…climate change is the reality of earth, climate is always
changing and shifting and adjusting….Its actually an even dumber name than
global warming, if you can image that. But give up all your rights to some
bureaucracy to save us. naive.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

James Holloway 2 months ago

Bias????! Simple science doesn’t give one an understanding. Daniel you
clearly show a pretentious bias and the inability to be open minded. This is
NASA DATA. Do you have a clue? Greenland and the Artic are still massive as
compared to the days of the Norsemen who once inhabiitated the region. Wheat
was grown and cattle raised on the wheat. At that time wine grapes were
consistantly grown across England and surrounding areas and guess what, the
hottest summers ever mentioned took place across Europe. Then it became
intensly cold and the wheat didn’t grow, the grapes didn’t fare any better and
the Norsmen’s cattle died and so did the Norsemen that didn’t head back to
mainland Europe. We have an ongoing climate change and pattern change. Solar
Flares periodically change our condition and Ice was once fully across North
America further south than the Canadian US border. Guess how we got the Great
Salt Lake, the Great Lakes, or even the once larger inland Sea that was Lake
Bonneville. Ice melted and redistributed, much like our President acts, but
then I digress. Your un-named assumptions and critic are without merit and
minus any substantial data. Of course you could call in those that aspire to
group hysteria that the media is calling Science by consensus. It is like
lemmings, when the first one jumps off the cliff or into the sea, everyone
must follow because we said so! History will show, as this article and the
accompanying data that “Consensus Science” is nothing more than the consensus
of “Grant Grubbing Schoolastic Hacks”.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

James Holloway 2 months ago

Bias????! Simple science doesn’t give one an understanding. Daniel you
clearly show a pretentious bias and the inability to be open minded. This is
NASA DATA. Do you have a clue? Greenland and the Artic are still massive as
compared to the days of the Norsemen who once inhabiitated the region. Wheat
was grown and cattle raised on the wheat. At that time wine grapes were
consistantly grown across England and surrounding areas and guess what, the
hottest summers ever mentioned took place across Europe. Then it became
intensly cold and the wheat didn’t grow, the grapes didn’t fare any better and
the Norsmen’s cattle died and so did the Norsemen that didn’t head back to
mainland Europe. We have an ongoing climate change and pattern change. Solar
Flares periodically change our condition and Ice was once fully across North
America further south than the Canadian US border. Guess how we got the Great
Salt Lake, the Great Lakes, or even the once larger inland Sea that was Lake
Bonneville. Ice melted and redistributed, much like our President acts, but
then I digress. Your un-named assumptions and critic are without merit and
minus any substantial data. Of course you could call in those that aspire to
group hysteria that the media is calling Science by consensus. It is like
lemmings, when the first one jumps off the cliff or into the sea, everyone
must follow because we said so! History will show, as this article and the
accompanying data that “Consensus Science” is nothing more than the consensus
of “Grant Grubbing Schoolastic Hacks”.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the FACT
that tropical plants and animals lived where we now have ICE at the Northern
Polar Regions. That simple fact therein gives credence to the fact that our
little globe in space is forever climatically changing. Too bad that Science
along with understanding (common sense) is lost on Consensus
seekers.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

dallasdunlap 2 months ago

James Holloway – For the sake of furthering your education, Google
“Milankovitch Cycles.” And while you’re at it, you might read the section
about the Greenland Vikings in Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse.”
BTW, there
are such things as cold weather grapes.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

James Holloway 2 months ago

Jared Diamond is not the only source and he is not definitive. As far as
cold grapes, you might try “sourgrapes”. It is an old term and clearly applies
here.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

James Holloway 2 months ago

The research done on the writings of the Monks that accompanied the Vikings
to Greenland is and exquisit record of climate changes during their tenure
there. Opportunity and availability were the by words lived by Norsemen. Made
great farmers till they started freezing to death and were stubborn engough to
think that the weather was going to go back to the way it was! It didn’t and
they didn’t make it. I noticed you missed commenting on the solar flares and
CO2 emmissions by the way were just proven to be 10 times higher during the
age of dinosaurs than what we have today. Either a lot of dying vegetation or
a lot of dinosaurs with gas. It all equals less oxygen but everything seemed
to adapt for 1000′s of years or low and behold it died off. Natural Selection
at its finest.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Gern
Blanston 2 months ago

For those of us less intelligent than you perhaps you will explain why the
brand change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” alters reality?How is
the writer is incorrect in claiming the media hypes every event that can
possibly be construed as being cause by warming while ignoring evidence to the
contrary?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Joe
Lombardo 2 months ago

The new term “climate change” to replace global warming was done when the
temps stopped going up in the late 90s. Its a safe term; the earth’s climate
is always changing and has been since the beginning. There were times when it
was much colder than today and times when it was warmer. There were also times
when the co2 content of the atmosphere was much higher, without machines and
smokestacks. Ever notice how all the global warming folks are dems?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Joe
Lombardo 2 months ago

The new term “climate change” to replace global warming was created when
the temps stopped going up in the late 90s. Its a safe term; the earth’s
climate is always changing and has been since the beginning. There were times
when it was much colder than today and times when it was warmer. There were
also times when the co2 content of the atmosphere was much higher, without
machines and smokestacks. Ever notice how all the global warming folks are
dems?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

paeng 2 months ago

Also, one can visit the home page of the site to see their analysis of the
data:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Abe Troyer
2 months ago

Daniel, I believe the author is making the point that although portions of
the planet, specifically in the northern hemisphere, are experiencing rising
temperatures and declining ice pack, there are areas with growing ice. this is
confirmation for “deniers” and the majority of news sources aren’t covering
the story, begging the question,,, why??? if shrinking ice pack in the arctic
merits coverage, why not growing ice pack in the antarctic? maybe we’re just
experiencing “weather”,,, maybe it is climate change,, but at least get the
whole story out to us.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Reality Check 2 months ago

The Media promotes Global Warming.

All there news articles are about “Warming”, not “Cooling”.

The sometimes call it Climate Change, but there examples are bout Global
Warming.

If you were correct, the the Main Stream Media would be pushing Global
Cooling at the South Pole as part of “Climate Change”, but they are not.

Read the article next time before you make a fool of yourself spouting
propaganda that can be so easily disproved by the very article you are posting
about.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

arrowrod
2 months ago

You’re not left wing, your observations don’t count.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

1.) They aren’t his observations. 2.) This data is taken into the climate
change picture and is not overlooked or misinterpreted. Data is not left wing
or right wing. The problem here is that this data is not in context and the
article is useless. Arrowrod, don’t be a troll.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

FasterJags 2 months ago

The fact that there is record Antarctic sea ice doesn’t fit the Journolist
Narrative so of course it can’t be reported.

There is a reason why “journalists” rank with used car salesmen and members
of Congress in disapproval by the public. All three make their living through
gross deception.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

economic freedom
2 months ago

And that’s the truth!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Ben O'Regan
2 months ago

The only people who say that politcs don’t enter into climate change
science are almost invariably neo-Marxist. Don’t get too amazed about how I
managed to deduce your political ideology simply from your post, it’s really
not that hard.

I’ve seen a lot of articles I regard as being out of context. Pretty much
everything on the subject since 1998(the warmest year on record) including
when James E. Hansen does his parlour trick of claiming subsequent years have
been warmer, but the error bars in his calculations are so wide that he’s
still in broad agreement with actual meterologists. That guy is a barrel of
laughs with that particular party trick.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

economic freedom
2 months ago

>>>>”This data is taken into the climate change picture and is
not overlooked or misinterpreted.”

Except for venues like The Heartland Institute, or websites like “Watt’s Up
With That”, I have never heard the mainstream leftist-biased media (ABC, NBC,
CBS, NPR, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post), let alone the
explicitly leftist-biased blogs (Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Democratic
Underground, Salon, Slate) mention the undisputed fact that the “CRYOSPHERE”,
which is the total amount of ice floating around planet Earth, has remained
CONSTANT for many decades. A decrease in ice at the North Pole is compensated
by an increase in ice at the South Pole.

And when it is mentioned, the left complains that it’s taken “out of
context.”

Wrong. It’s the left that has always cherry-picked its data (or, in many
cases, simply invented the data altogether) for purely political reasons.
How’s this for some context: we have not forgotten the outrageous scandal of
“Climategate”, which was the intentional misrepresentation of climate data by
a group of scientists in the UK and the US. They admitted biasing their data
to show a global warming trend in emails they sent to one another. When
skeptical scientists requested to see their original data-sets from climate
monitoring stations, they claimed “they couldn’t find them.” The dog ate their
homework.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

economic freedom
2 months ago

>>>>”This data is taken into the climate change picture and is
not overlooked or misinterpreted.”

Except for venues like The Heartland Institute, or websites like “Watt’s Up
With That”, I have never heard the mainstream leftist-biased media (ABC, NBC,
CBS, NPR, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post), let alone the
explicitly leftist-biased blogs (Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Democratic
Underground, Salon, Slate) mention the undisputed fact that the “CRYOSPHERE”,
which is the total amount of ice floating around planet Earth, has remained
CONSTANT for many decades. A decrease in ice at the North Pole is compensated
by an increase in ice at the South Pole.

And when it is mentioned, the left complains that it’s taken “out of
context.”

Wrong. It’s the left that has always cherry-picked its data (or, in many
cases, simply invented the data altogether) for purely political reasons.
How’s this for some context: we have not forgotten the outrageous scandal of
“Climategate”, which was the intentional misrepresentation of climate data by
a group of scientists in the UK and the US. In emails they sent to one
another, they admitted biasing their data for the sake of showing a global
warming trend. When skeptical scientists requested to see their original
data-sets from climate monitoring stations, they claimed “they couldn’t find
them.” The dog ate their homework.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Floyd R Turbo
(American) 2 months ago

Actually that’s not true.

Any indication of unusually hot temperatures or unusual climactic events
gets huge publicity in the state controlled media while articles like this
don’t.

The global warming conspiracy theorists claim that the earth has warmed one
degree celsius in 150 years. How do you measure that when most analog
thermometers are only accurate to +/- 1 degree?

150 years ago thermometers were probably less accurate.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

Mr. Taylor, I hate to have to inform you that you’re article is useless.
You do nothing to explore the climate change narrative or the vast amount of
data sets that exist. Good work at being a poor journalist. The Antarctic Sea
Ice issue isn’t an issue at all. Sea Ice isn’t even a concern. Sea Ice sits
atop water and doesn’t add to rising sea levels or large climate effects.
Arctic Sea Ice (as you ignore) overwhelmingly has been decreasing far faster
than your Antarctic Sea Ice graph shows an increase. I pray you don’t consider
yourself a journalist and thanks for yet another article that needlessly adds
confusion to crystal clear data.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Tim
2 months ago

I pray you don’t consider yourself a scientist. The Arctic Ice is floating
and the Antarctic sea ice is setting on land and sea. If the land ice is
increasing it would lower sea levels. And your comment on sea ice is not even
a concern lmao what do you think everyone has been talking about.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

id2nv2nj2ca 2 months ago

What exactly makes you such an expert?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

RJ69
2 months ago

Tim, you may want to read up on your “points”. Justin is correct. Satellite
measurements clearly show that Antarctic land ice is not gaining. The
relatively minor increases in sea ice is not an appropriate justification for
discrediting other measurements, other types of climate change data, or the
continued observations, at both poles, that a rapid transformation is
occurring.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

cr1776 2 months ago

“Sea Ice sits atop water and doesn’t add to rising sea levels…”

REALLY? A good example of poor scientific knowledge and understanding. An
experiment for you: fill a glass with water. Add some salt. Carefully place a
piece of ice in the glass.

Did the water rise? Is the ice “sit[ting] atop” the water in the glass or
partially submerged?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Jeffrey Stevens
2 months ago

I pray YOU don’t consider yourself an objective voice. Whether all the
things you say are true or not, I’m not a scientist, I don’t know. THIS is
what I do know, The pro-global warming side has been caught cheating and the
pro-global warming side (as the article points out) is published at a rate of
1000′s to one pro global warming to anti-global warming. anybody trying to
“sell” anything that hard has an agenda, not a cause.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

I do not consider myself a scientist. I have too much respect for the
research to do so. Though you’re wrong to say that the Sea Ice “is setting on
land and sea.” The name Sea Ice is applied to ice only floating on the sea. As
the article mentions nothing about land ice, I don’t understand your comment.
Your understanding of the science is fundamentally flawed, Tim. People rarely
speak of Sea Ice as a concern in the conversation of sea-level rise. Ice shelf
and glacier loss is greater concern and the data clearly indicate that these
are shrinking.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Eric Frost
2 months ago

All the global warming/climate change crackpots need to go back to hugging
trees and saving owls. Just FYI….mother nature will always prevail in the end.
We have had many severe climate changes throughout this planets history that
include mass extinctions….long before man arrived, and somehow mother nature
always finds a way to clean up the mess. A Volcano like the one under
Yellowstone could explode next week and wipe us off the map with all the
harmful gasses it would expel. If large enough it could blanket the entire
planet, and long after we are gone life will go on and the planet will once
again clean itself up.

The problem with the Al Gore lovers is they just refuse to hear data
dispelling the beliefs they have embraced. They won’t listen…refuse to
listen…or have their heads buried so far up there one ass they think shit
smells good.

I am not going to say man has absolutely nothing to do with climate change,
but our impact is so minimal that the idea of throwing trillions of $$$ at
unproven solutions is completely foolish, ignorant and frankly naive.

I believe people like John Coleman…the founder of the weather channel who
has said “global warming is the biggest scam in history”. Look him up. Wait….I
am guessing you tree huggers will somehow discredit him. Do it
anyway.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Rick T
2 months ago

“crystal clear data” my a$$.

Global warming hoaxers just can’t get over the fact that their hoax has
been exposed and nobody is buying their crap anymore.

Sorry leftie hoaxer, you will have to try to find a new way to scam money
out of productive nations and give it to less productive ones. And no…
changing the name from global warming to climate change isn’t going to cut it,
it is still the same hoax.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

I have no agenda. If the scientific consensus starts to shift to a more
natural explanation or climate change, I’m happy to go where the data does. At
this moment in time the data points at a rapidly increasing average
temperature as well as greater occurrences of atmospheric anomalies. My ONLY
aggravation is with writers who simply oversimplify the data or say something
that is clearly wrong. Taylor and his coworkers at The Heartland Institute
have a history of distorting data.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

More
Liberty 2 months ago

Are you serious? Crystal clear? Personally I believe in climate change. The
earth climate has been changing for over 4 billion years.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Mike
Prince 2 months ago

You are mistaken. A recent report by NASA (prepared by a strong believer in
AGW) has shown that the Antarctic Ice (land and sea) has grown contrary to
expectations. Furthermore, gains have EXCEEDED losses during the period from
2003-2008. It seems that the Antarctic is failing to comply with predictions
of doom and gloom. What a bummer for the alarmists! ; )

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Mike
Prince 2 months ago

here is the link:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

@Eric Frost – I agree with you that nature will likely find a way to
survive any catastrophic climate events. I’m not worried and I’m not out
hugging trees (though they are very important). The science does not make a
comment one way or the other as to the overall “health” of the earth. All the
science says is that “If trend ‘A’ continues, ‘B’ is a probable outcome.” If
‘B’ comes true – the theory holds water. It made a prediction based on
evidence. SCIENCE!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Ian
Thomas 2 months ago

The problem with this article goes beyond this. The data he is citing is
evidence of a warming climate. Sea ice levels rise in the fall when there is
significant melting of ice from land during the summer. Since glaciers melt in
chunks, these chunks fall into the sea. An increase in sea ice around
Antarctica is a sign that the Antarctic ice shelves are melting faster.

This is fundamentally different from a record low in Arctic sea ice because
there is no land in the Arctic that can create sea ice by having chunks of
glaciers fall off. Sea ice is produced in the arctic by consistently cold
weather, not by melting land ice. So a low level of Arctic sea ice means it is
not being produced as fast as it is melting.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

Mike – I read the link you provided. They conclude something different than
your assertion. The ice discharge mentioned in the paper is from land-ice
(glacier and ice shelf) discharge into the sea. These are things that can’t be
replaced. However, the snow-fall amounts have increased as the paper indicates
possibly from a warmer atmosphere holding moisture. The snow-fall accumulation
is greater than the ice flow loss. But, the paper (aside from the abstract)
indicates that these two numbers should not be confused to be similar to one
another. They are not.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

Ian – good point and well articulated.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Eric Frost
2 months ago

Theories are just that theories. We have a hypothesis, but no proven
science….just theories. Anyone can create a theory about just about anything.
This is how shows like ancient aliens make it to TV…..a bunch of what
ifs.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Tim
2 months ago

I should have said Antarctic ice not sea ice. I was commenting on the
statement that sea ice has little to do with climate change or global warming.
That is wrong, sea ice reflects the suns light and with no ice the ocean
absorbs it. I did not say the Antarctic ice was saving the planet. To say the
sea ice has nothing to do with climate change is crazy it’s all related.
Damage one part other dominoes fall.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Floyd R Turbo
(American) 2 months ago

Completely wrong my deluded friend:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

Glaciers ARE NOT shrinking.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Mike
Prince 2 months ago

Justin, that is nonsense. If there is more ice being added to the
Antarctica via snow, than is being released to the seas, what I said still
holds true. The Antarctica is healthy and growing (we may regret this fact in
the future) and it holds 90% of the world’s ice. Your counterpoint wasn’t
really a point at all.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Fort Worth Yankee
2 months ago

Ohhhh….Mr. Wilson….the reason why sea ice around Antarctica is increasing
is because the land mass ice and glaciers are increasing. While it is true
that Arctic Ocean ice is decreasing, it is also true that the Greenland land
mass ice is increasing. The ‘data’ many ‘Man Made Global Warming’ nut cases
scream about is mostly from poorly placed weather station, over pavement, near
buildings, etc. But the most important data that is ignored by these groups is
‘climate change’ has been going on since the Earth had an atmosphere. The
Earth has experienced one and maybe two ‘Snowball Earth’ periods, where the
entire Earth was covered by ice. It has also had several warm periods
throughout history. In other words the Earth’s climate is cyclic. Man has no
influence over the climate. Yes, CO2 levels are higher today than it was 1000
years ago, but it was much higher in the days of the dinosaurs. Was it their
farts that increased CO2 levels in their day?
There is no ‘crystal clear’
data because it is conflicting data at best, and minipulated data at worst.
Scientists make their living off of government grants, and if they can
convince the politicians of this scam, they get money. The old adage applies
here; FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Lysol Motorola 2 months ago

From your comment, it appears that all you are concerned with is sea level.
Too bad for you that it has risen about 400 feet since the last glaciers. When
the next glaciers come, it will go right back down.
The entire man-made
global warming/climate/change CO2 religion has been exposed for the cult that
it is. Unlike many of its adherents, I actually have degrees in science, can
do the math and think critically without an agenda to warp the
outcomes.
Just for the fun of it, try to calculate the dispersion of CO2
form where it is produced (only in limited industrial areas) to the entire
atmosphere. While you are at it, try calculating the effect of CLOUDS (never
been done) on atmospheric temperature (do several different levels while you
have your pencil all warmed up). Analyze how poorly ALL the computer models
(how hard is it to rig a model to ‘prove’ anything) do at predicting. The IPCC
climate models can’t simulate the reality of observed climate conditions.
Climate models and computer simulations are incapable of producing credible
climate predictions and forecasts due to the lack of understanding that
scientists have about all the interactions within the climate system.
Then
take a shot at figuring how cosmic rays (creating clouds) effect temperature.
Don’t forget the variability of the sun.
You get the idea.
If rising sea
level frightens you, just think of it not as rising levels but as the oceans
getting deeper. All the increase in water is at the BOTTOM of the
hydro-column. Makes about as much sense at what the MMGW cultists say. Praise
ALGOR

Permalink
Flag

Reply

sammy thebull 2 months ago

more scare tactics from the liberals….
i thought by now we were all
going to be under water, what happened? AIDS didn’t kill us all, neither did
H1N1, what’s next? you are definitely running out of scare tactics….

Permalink
Flag

Reply

CLAY HERBERT 2 months ago

You beat me to the punch. The rigging and lying the scientists got caught
in was telling!!

Permalink
Flag

Reply

dallasdunlap 2 months ago

Eric Frost – A theory is a systematic explanation of a set of observations.
A good theory is one that can retrodict (explain past observations) and make
reliable predictions or forecasts of future observations. A theory is as good
as it gets in science. There’s nothing higher in science than a workable
theory.
AGW is a workable theory that has been consistently and repeatedly
confirmed.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

@Lysol – I don’t believe you understand the current models the IPCC are
using. They do a decent job predicting current climate and upcoming climate. I
think the majority here seem to be under the assumption that scientists are
deceiving the public with their research. I think that conspiratorial thinking
is unproductive.

@Eric – I don’t think you understand what a theory truly is. Most people
who make that argument have a high school understanding of what science
is.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

James McDonald 2 months ago

Nonsense. Antarctic SEA ice is called that because it is floating in the
sea.

Antarctic LAND ice is melting at the rate of about 250 cubic kilometers per
year, a fact that Taylor carefully omits.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Y Zhao 2
months ago

And the Antarctic holds a significantly larger amount of water than does
the Arctic

Permalink
Flag

Reply

chg2 2 months ago

The ice on land is part of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and its extensions into
the ocean, as an ice shelf, are typically grounded on the bottom. This ice is
not sea ice, which is formed from the freezing of seawater. Only a tiny
fraction of sea ice becomes frozen to land as land-fast sea ice.

Now to the important points:
1. Scientists have known about the increase
in Antarctic sea ice for years, it is consistent with the models for the
Antarctic, and it does nothing to “disprove” global warming or climate
change.
2. Increased snowfall and building up of the glaciers in the
Antarctic continent’s interior is also consistent with the models for the
Antarctic, and it does nothing to “disprove” global warming or climate
change.
3. Given the above information and the fact that we expect the
Antarctic sea ice to hit its winter-time maximum extent in September (just
like the Arctic sea ice hits its maximum extent in April), what is the big
deal here?
4. The mainstream media didn’t pick this story up because it is
not a surprise to anybody knowledgeable about the cryosphere and its response
to greenhouse warming and climate change.
5. The story only has traction
with people like James Taylor, who only knows enough to be dangerous and not
enough to actually help inform his readers about the subject.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

chg2 2 months ago

The ice on land is part of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and its extensions into
the ocean, as an ice shelf, are typically grounded on the bottom. This ice is
not sea ice, which is formed from the freezing of seawater. Only a tiny
fraction of sea ice becomes frozen to land as land-fast sea ice.

Now to the important points:
1. Scientists have known about the increase
in Antarctic sea ice for years, it is consistent with the climate-change
models for the Antarctic, and it does nothing to “disprove” global
warming.
2. Increased snowfall and the build up of the ice sheet in the
Antarctic continent’s interior are also consistent with the climate-change
models for the Antarctic, and they do nothing to “disprove” global
warming.
3. Given the above information and the fact that we expect the
Antarctic sea ice to hit its winter-time maximum extent in September (just
like the Arctic sea ice hits its maximum extent in April), what is the big
deal here?
4. The mainstream media didn’t pick this story up because it is
not a surprise to anybody knowledgeable about the cryosphere and its response
to global warming and climate change.
5. The story only has traction with
people like James Taylor, who only knows enough to be dangerous and not enough
to actually help inform his readers about the Earth’s climate system actually
works.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

chg2 2 months ago

The ice on land is part of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and its extensions into
the ocean, as an ice shelf, are typically grounded on the bottom. This ice is
not sea ice, which is formed from the freezing of seawater. Only a tiny
fraction of sea ice becomes frozen to land as land-fast sea ice.

Now to the important points:
1. Scientists have known about the increase
in Antarctic sea ice for years, it is consistent with the climate-change
models for the Antarctic, and it does nothing to “disprove” global
warming.
2. Increased snowfall and the build up of the ice sheet in the
Antarctic continent’s interior are also consistent with the climate-change
models for the Antarctic, and they do nothing to “disprove” global
warming.
3. Given the above information and the fact that we expect the
Antarctic sea ice to hit its winter-time maximum extent in September (just
like the Arctic sea ice hits its maximum extent in April), what is the big
deal here?
4. The mainstream media didn’t pick this story up because it is
not a surprise to anybody knowledgeable about the cryosphere and its response
to global warming and climate change.
5. The story only has traction with
climate change denialists like James Taylor, who only know enough to be
dangerous and not enough to actually help inform their readers about how the
Earth’s climate system actually works.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Jerry
Pinkham 2 months ago

It appears that the author, James Taylor, missed several important sessions
in his Journalism 101 class. I noticed he didn’t mention a single, much less
multiple or detailed sources for his story. Journalism 101 demands even
freshman reporters answer the all-too simple question, “Says who?”

Well, if you take the trouble to squirrel after either of his only two web
links, you find that he’s supposedly gathering all this data from “Real
Science,” a right wing “ignore-the-real-scientists” web site. These folks are
disputing and twisting the data from The National Snow and Ice Data Center
(NSIDC). You can visit both to decide which you’d rather believe.

The Real Science page web banner shows a picture of Toto and Dorothy from
the Wizard of Oz . . . how appropriate. Apparently neither the dog, the girl,
or Forbes in this case, is in Kansas anymore. Also appropriately, is a quote
at the top of their page that reads: “Science is the belief in the ignorance
of the experts” – Richard Feynman

Now I’m wondering if the National Enquirer should be worried about being
under-classed with its reporting authority.

You can do better Forbes.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Steven Felton 2 months ago

Oh like Obama stating that the science is settled.
Note here is the
reference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oc2YvLmPQs

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

The majority of Climate Science experts conclude that the data as a whole
points to a specific conclusion. Obama’s statements about the science has
nothing to do with the science. He doesn’t get to decide; however, most
climatologists agree that the science is settled.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Mike
Prince 2 months ago

Jerry, you are just wrong. The Antarctic has grown. The land and the sea
have seen an increase in ice as reported by NASA here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

Sorry to give you the “bad news” that things aren’t as bad as you
hoped.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

crschoen
2 months ago

Thanks, you spelled it out better than me. It’s pretty said to see a major
publication not even use a primary source for their articles. The anti-science
crowd is like a incestuous ring of web sites that all link to each
other.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

David Clayton 2 months ago

I came here hoping to read about science, and instead got a biased
political spin story
about biased political spin in the media.
Nothing
to see here, a waste of time.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

rsborchardt 2 months ago

” biased political spin story about biased political spin in the
media.”

Just what did you think global warming is?

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Jerry
Pinkham 2 months ago

It appears that the author, James Taylor, missed several important sessions
in his Journalism 101 class. I noticed he didn’t mention a single, much less
multiple or detailed source for his revelation story. Every Journalism 101
freshman can tell you the number one question for reporters to answer is the
simple question, “Says who?” Where’s the attribution? The verifiability?

Well, if you take the trouble to squirrel after either of his only two web
links, you find that he’s supposedly gathering all this “factual” data from
“Real Science,” a blatant right-wing “ignore-the-real-scientists” web site.
These folks are disputing and twisting the data from The National Snow and Ice
Data Center (NSIDC). You can visit both to decide which you’d rather
believe.

The Real Science page web banner shows a picture of Toto and Dorothy from
the Wizard of Oz . . . how appropriate. Apparently neither the dog, the girl,
or Forbes in this case, is in Kansas anymore. Also appropriately, is a quote
at the top of their page that reads: “Science is the belief in the ignorance
of the experts” – Richard Feynman

Now I’m wondering if the National Enquirer should be worried about being
under-classed with its reporting authority.

You can do better Forbes.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Greg
Barton 2 months ago

Despite what the left screams, this is all about control. THEIR
control.

The science is far from settled despite how the left wants to CONTROL the
issue by saying “it’s settled”.

East Anglia cooked the data, tried to hide it, their emails in the
background were discovered, and all the cred evaporated.

REMEMBER? WHAT IS THIS? GROUND HOG DAY?????

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Justin Wilson 2 months ago

Greg, your comment sounds deranged and I’m not sure how to respond to
you.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

dallasdunlap 2 months ago

JerryPinkham – Mr. Taylor is not a journalist. He is an attorney who is now
working as a propagandist for the denialist Heartland Institute. His job is to
spread lies and propaganda in an effort to confuse the public about climate
science.
For some reason, Forbes has a stable of these guys doing weekly
op- ed, which discredits Forbes as a source of true information.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

thephysicsguy 2 months ago

Dallas,

You are seriously naive, or a simpleton. Wow! What journalistic entity is
ever a source of “true information”. LMAO. Peter Gleick used to be an op-ed
contributor at Forbes. An you complain about Taylor??

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Robert
Cryan 2 months ago

Antarctica is the driest place on earth. Therefor, the amount of ice added
by precipitation, even over thirty years, would be minimal. The author himself
attests to the considerable quantity of ice that has migrated into the sea
during the same period of time. Therefor the net loss of ice must have been
substantial.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

rsborchardt 2 months ago

Well, at least you tried reasoning, which puts you in the minority. But
that doesn’t make your argument right. The global climate system is very, very
complex and tightly coupled. Unfortunately simple explanations, even if
logical, are always grossly incomplete.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Y Zhao 2
months ago

Precipetation varies widely. Some parts get nearly no precipetation and
some get a very large amount. You have extended fact that SOME PART is very
dry to incorrect conclusion that all is very dry.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Michael
Neuman 2 months ago

Don’t be foolish. OF COURSE one pole will reach its annual minimum about
the same time the other reaches its annual maximum. When it’s summer at one,
it’s winter at the other.

Furthermore, quite aside from seasonal effects, increasing Antarctic ice is
well-handled by global warming predictions. If it’s cold enough to make ice,
warmer (but still sub-freezing) air holds more water. Result is more snow on
the pole with the cold land mass. More ice movement and ice shelf calving.
Less on the pole with thin ice and water underneath.

So next time, THINK before you start jerking your knee.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

rsborchardt 2 months ago

Simpleton explanation for very complex natural phenomena. One of thousands.
Collect them all…

Permalink
Flag

Reply

James Griggs 2 months ago

Warm air does not hold more water than cold genius.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

Griggs Check 2 months ago

Actually, Mr. Griggs, warm air holds more water vapour than cold air (all
other things being equal). Here’s a explanation that might be simple enough
for you to understand.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/276228/humidity

In short, Mr. Neuman is right, you are wrong, and you are making yourself
look like a fool. If you want to try a rebuttal, maybe you should use facts
and logic next time, and keep away from the sarcasm and unfounded assertions
unless you have something to back them up with.

Permalink
Flag

Reply

1

2

3

4

Follow Comments Following
Comments Unfollow Comments

Most Read on Forbes

News

People

Places

Companies

+ show more

James
Taylor Contributor

Follow Following
Unfollow

+ show more

I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and
managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and
environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented
environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox
News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has
been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I
studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I
obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed
are those of the writer.

James Taylor’s Popular Posts

Climategate
2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate 353,416
views

Antarctic
Sea Ice Sets Another Record 305,726 views

New
NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism 87,696 views

Global
Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall 37,399
views

Polar
Ice Rapture Misses Its Deadline 35,493 views

More from James Taylor

James’
RSS Feed

James’ Profile

James’ Website

Who Just Made a Billion Dollars?

Our Real-Time Billionaires scoreboard tracks the biggest holdings
for 50 of the world’s wealthiest people. See who's up & who's
down right now »

Inside Forbes

The Most Powerful People: The 71
Who Shape The World

There are nearly 7.1 billion
people on the planet. These are the 71 men and women who matter the most.

see photos

The
Highest-Paid Women In Music

America's Best Small
Companies

see photos

Best States For
Business

Real-Time
Billionaires

Channels

Business

Investing

Tech

Entrepreneurs

Op/Ed

Leadership

Lifestyle

Lists

Company Info

Forbes
Careers

Advertising Information

Forbes Conferences

Investment
Newsletters

Reprints
& Permissions

Terms and
Conditions

Privacy
Statement

Contact Us

Sitemap

Help

Affiliate Sites

Forbes China

Forbes India

Forbes Israel

Forbes Middle
East

Forbes Poland

Forbes Romania

Forbes Russia

Forbes Ukraine

RealClear
Politics

RealClear
Markets

RealClear
World

RealClear
Sports

Data Partners

Market Data by Morningstar

Thomson Reuters

AdChoices

Publications

Free
Trial Issue

Subscriber
Services

Buy Back
Issues

2012 Forbes.com LLC™   All
Rights Reserved