Not being a climatologist or a scientist in the conventional sense, thus being at the mercy of the "experts", could someone, anyone, sort all the confusing and contradictory data and info out for us average, normal, hard working people with bills to pay and family's to raise so we know for sure if we are being screwed or not by the purveyors of climate change and the catastrophe will strike us all unless we cap and trade the hell out of
the polluters everybody crowd.
To help in pondering this conundrum, let us turn to the politically Conservative Daily Mail. Surely they will give Lying Lester the
scientifically correct info he wants to hear...
|Daily Mail: ...far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012. To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.|
Lying Lester's verdict given this info from one source... a Conservative, and therefore highly trustworthy source (trusted to find "evidence" that supports the course of action that will further enrich the plutocrats)?
The Artic ice meltdown predicted by Al Gore was a hoax. A lEftist Hoax designed to enrich wealthy lEftists like Mr. Gore. A hoax, unless you believe Skeptical Science, which says that the "Arctic sea ice has recovered" is a "myth"...
|Skeptical Science: Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.|
Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it makes up most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice.
Over time, sea ice reflects the fast-changing circumstances of weather. It is driven principally by changes in surface temperature, forming and melting according to the seasons, the winds, cloud cover and ocean currents. In 2010, for example, sea ice extent recovered dramatically in March, only to melt again by May.
Sea-ice is subject to powerful short-term effects so while we can't conclude anything about the health of the ice from just a few years' data, an obvious trend emerges over the space of a decade or more, showing a decrease of about 5% of average sea-ice cover per decade. (Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?).
Skeptical Science concludes that "Sea ice extent recovered slightly during the Arctic winters of 2008-09, but the... volume of multi-year ice has not recovered at all, and is showing a steeply negative trend". And the purposefully deceptive Daily Mail article mentions coverage (in square mileage) and not depth... so it looks like they're lying to us.
But, as my buddy Will Hart says, "Skeptical Science is an alarmist anti-science smear site"... so any facts they may present can, thankfully, be ignored, and the lies (from sources like "Daily Mail") embraced.
Lying Lester is extremely thankful the lies about AGW are winning out and disinformation spread by Conservative
rags publications is fooling the rAbble. Especially seeing as taxing the polluters would decrease the profits of our beloved plutocrats and mess with the noble goal of concentrating wealth at the top.