Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

It's not real - RapFact™

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

It's not real - RapFact™

---

And you think this is how an adult is suppose to respond?

Huh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Everyone knows that CANADIAN meteorological science guys are deep in the pockets of BIG OIL !!

---

---

Do you think she will object that BIG SOLAR is given such short shrift in your diatribe? Like that big orange blob in the sky?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

EVERY scientist who denies the TRUTH of global warming does so at the behest of BIG OIL!! It's a well documented FACT!

---

Climate denial can't provide a coherent explanation for the full body of evidence describing what's happening to our climate. They lurch from denying that global warming is happening to blaming the (nonexistent) global warming on some natural cause to claiming that (nonexistent, non-human-caused) global warming doesn't matter because, well, chillax dude!

In contrast, climate scientists present many lines of evidence pointing to a single, coherent conclusion: that global warming is happening, that humans are causing it, and that climate impacts are being felt everywhere.

---

Guess not - didn't even warrant a mention is the causes of the solar-system-wide warming of globes, so that must mean farting cows are causing the heating up of planets in the far reaches of our solar system, even on the opposite side of our Sun from us, and all in unison with our global warming.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hmmm ... you both seem to be suffering from 'backyard' syndrome. Not quite sure what part of
GLOBAL
you don't get, but your brains seem completely deficient in ability to formulate the concept.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

It's not real - RapFact™

---

And you think this is how an adult is suppose to respond?

Huh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
That's nice, but what of the actual story posted, and the satellite image showing more ice, not less ?

---

News today: Franklin Expedition ship found because of what? Guess? Wait for it....
They could not search for the lost ship in the location they were scheduled to because there was TOO MUCH ICE. The scientists clearly stated that the MYTH of lessening ice would have allowed them to search in their scheduled location, but instead they had to shift south and FOUND IT!
Canadian meteorological scientists stating the lessening of ice is a MYTH - but who can believe them, they don't have a libtard bias to their facts, nor a political oar in the water.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Fun site.

http://www.fauxscienceslayer.com/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's not real - RapFact™

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's not real - RapFact™

---

You really should be deported to Troll Country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
You're a little slow responding to 1kiki's comment from SIX MONTHS BACK! Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:13 PM

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, 7 months ago, The Daily Mail publishes a story where it relays facts pertaining to the thickness of the ice and its extant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, 7 months ago, The Daily Mail publishes a story where it relays facts pertaining to the thickness of the ice and its extant.

---

You are quoting the Daily Mail, which has a terrible reputation. The Daily Mail (aka, Hate Mail, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan and so on), is a reactionary tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values," middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse). It prints whatever will sell to its target audience. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690828/The-Maldives-disappear-News-C
orporation-boss-Rupert-Murdoch-says-climate-change-real-cares-sea-level-rises-wipe-Maldives.html

---

Quote:

---

Well, that is rappy- thinking his backyard... or a single event ... represents an entire history. I think he understands the word "decline", what he can't quite wrap his brain around is "long term" or "worldwide". It's too big. -SIGNY

And Sig - you think that the ice build up was a 'single event' ? Really? Pretty sure that's not how it works w/ arctic ice. Takes what ? Time.- RAPPY

Yep... it shrinks in summer, and grows in winter. But OVER TIME.... decades, not a couple of months or a couple of years... Arctic ice has shrunk. That's what they mean by LONG TERM... something beyond a day, or a month, [or a year], even a decade.-SIGNY

Well, here you are claiming that more ice isn't a 'single event' but a TREND, over TIME. This is in your words. Something you affirm from your own - what passes for a mind. Something you can't hide behind as a quote. This is YOUR claim. Which is wrong. Yet again.-KIKI

Nope. I'm not wrong, you are. There IS more ice now than there was 2 years ago. FACT. I didn't make up the story, out of thin air, the story exists because of the very fact that there is MORE , not less ice in the arctic.
- RAPPY, doing his usual I'm right and you're wrong when the real facts clearly contradict his factoid

This place tracks arctic ice: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Today's picture looks like this:



Oh PSHAW!
Your decades worth of ice decline are nothing - NOTHING! - compared to little rappy's two-year time period he's designated a 'trend'! And he said so! So it's true!- KIKI

---

Quote:

---

Decades really aren't all that significant in geologic or planetary time.

---

Quote:

---

1000's or even 10,000's of years only begin to make sense then.But the anthropomorphic bias that we view things, oh yeah, a few decades is a long, long, long, long time.

---

Quote:

---

On February 25, 2015 Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This year’s maximum ice extent was the lowest in the satellite record, with below-average ice conditions everywhere except in the Labrador Sea and Davis Strait. The maximum extent is 1.10 million square kilometers

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Kill the messenger if you don't like the message ?

---

Quote:

---

However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satell
ite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3VeFi6zc8

---

Quote:

---

However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

Show me where the good doctor didn't say that, and you'll have my attention. If not, go suck on an ice cube.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
from your article:

"... the long-term trend still shows a decline ..."

You DO know what the word 'decline' means, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, comparing it to '2 years ago' is more meaningful than 'on record'?

As in, last year 'there was more ice than 2 years ago' is more important than the fact that now the ice is at the lowest maximum EVER recorded?

PLEASE - keep on with your idiocy. Don't let me, the facts, normal English, logic or sanity stop you. Your posts make a fine collection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Arctic sea ice reaches lowest maximum extent on record.

On February 25, 2015, Arctic sea ice extent appeared to have reached its annual maximum extent, marking the beginning of the sea ice melt season. This year’s maximum extent not only occurred early; it is also the lowest in the satellite record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/03/2015-maximum-lowest-on-recor
d/

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
TWO years ago? That would be 2013 - a year no one is discussing. What ARE you talking about?

---

Quote:

---

Antarctica is melting, not growing. In fact the ice mass is dropping at an accelerating rate due to multiple factors including accelerated glacial ice calving rates. The loss of sea based ice allows the Antarctic ice to move faster towards the ocean resulting in an increased rate of loss of the Antarctic ice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Antarctic ice is melting faster than ever seen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Antarctic ice is melting faster than ever seen.

---

Yeah. Sure.
All those people actually on Antarctica really have no idea what they are talking about when they point out there is more ice than ever recorded before.

I suppose we should all just believe some Libtard sitting in his chair complaining that his air conditioning is not working, and that means the globe is warming.

---