2007 BBC says arctic ice free by 2013...

[Arbo]

icefree.jpg

I think by now we should have been flooded according the eco wackjobs.

In the past year the arctic has added 920,000 square miles of ice.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...racking-er.php

Sure and glad that science was 'settled' so long ago. LOL

[Noir]

Media goes for eye-catching but silly headline shock.

None-news sources may not be as exciting, but thankfully they are much more informative -

"Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles). This was 1.03 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August, but well above the level recorded last year, which was the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Ice extent this August was similar to the years 2008 to 2010. These contrasts in ice extent from one year to the next highlight the year-to-year variability attending the overall, long-term decline in sea ice extent."



http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[DragonStryk72]

icefree.jpg

I think by now we should have been flooded according the eco wackjobs.

In the past year the arctic has added 920,000 square miles of ice.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...racking-er.php

Sure and glad that science was 'settled' so long ago. LOL

Well, global warming does exist, but as Noir basically said, just not at the alarmist pace the MSM and environmentalist lobby try to push, and that isn't lunacy. It is purposeful, and although they're doing it for a good purpose, keeping the planet safe for life, they refuse to understand how much they hurt their own cause with their tactics.

It's like ten years ago, when An Inconvenient Truth came out, and everyone heard Al Gore screaming about these numbers and figures, only to find out that those numbers had been fudged. It not only discredited him, but discredited the science behind the unfudged numbers.

Actually, it turns out that we're already leeching carbon out of the atmosphere, and the answer, like most things, didn't require any particularly huge solution. Cattle farmers discovered that old school pasture raising of cows actually reduces carbon, by keeping carbon in the ground:

So how can Coleman and Damrosch believe that adding livestock to their farm will help the planet? Cattleman Ridge Shinn has the answer. On a wintry Saturday at his farm in Hardwick, Mass., he is out in his pastures encouraging a herd of plump Devon cows to move to a grassy new paddock. Over the course of a year, his 100 cattle will rotate across 175 acres four or five times. “Conventional cattle raising is like mining,” he says. “It’s unsustainable, because you’re just taking without putting anything back. But when you rotate cattle on grass, you change the equation. You put back more than you take.”


It works like this: grass is a perennial. Rotate cattle and other ruminants across pastures full of it, and the animals’ grazing will cut the blades — which spurs new growth — while their trampling helps work manure and other decaying organic matter into the soil, turning it into rich humus. The plant’s roots also help maintain soil health by retaining water and microbes. And healthy soil keeps carbon dioxide underground and out of the atmosphere.

http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/01/ho...ve-the-planet/

Between that and increasingly energy efficient engines for our vehicles, which is second in the order of highest producers, we really are getting ahead of the problem, we just need stay steady with it.