Have they thought that it could be an 'increase' in sea ice because the Antarctic ice sheets are flowing into the sea so much faster? It makes perfect sense to me, and also would explain why the Arctic is shrinking while the Antarctic ice sheet is 'growing'.
I want to see a study of the total AMMOUNT of ice, not the SIZE of ice. A square mile of ice paper thin is less ice than a cubic hectometer (100x100x100meters). Without measuring thickness, "size" means nothing.

^ ^ ^ I agree, but it's getting frustrating. The anti's are religiously adamant and they have no problem finding sources to cite. Local radio show here just said that we're in a cooling phase now and Antarctic ice has actually increased while arctic decreased... I'm worn out.

I'm not saying that "climate change" isn't "real," but that the practice of climate science is highly prone to fraud and conflates natural science with social science.

This matters because one could accept climate change on the basis of natural science but still reject it on the basis of social science given the understanding that the policies normally associated with environmentalism are clearly not the proper ways of addressing the effects of climate change.

As such, there is a lack of scrutiny in much of the discourse about and around climate change (to say nothing of the ridicule and mockery and epithets that are slung on "both" sides). There are a few separate questions worth addressing:

1. Is the planet getting warmer?
2. If it's getting warmer, is it anthropogenic (human-caused)? (If not, then it's unclear how humans can 'reduce' it and/or deal with the consequences.)
3. If it's getting warmer, by what magnitude? (This is a scientific question with many implications for policy.)
4. What are the costs of climate change? (Oft asked/answered)
5. What are the benefits of climate change? (Might it, say, make the arctic habitable and a source of land or food? Might it bring down the costs of heating homes/businesses in colder climates?)
6. Do costs outweigh benefits or vice versa? (This question, while important, is based less on scientific fact than on interpersonal value and depends heavily on the results of the scientific questions above. As such, public policy is based on facts and values, and does not translate science directly into policy.)
7. If costs outweigh the benefits, what policies are appropriate? (This, again, would be determined by the matters of both fact and value -- natural science and social science.)
8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of climate change? (Might the policies imposed to address the costs of climate change have associated costs that may outweigh their potential benefits? Might reducing the effects of global warming slow the economic growth so as to impoverish half the planet, or imbuing powers to governments that're likely to be used in ways having little to do with climate change? Such costs might have grave and devastating effects that far outstrip their potential benefits to say nothing of the perceived costs of climate change, itself.)

This is a social scientific question that is no less important than the natural scientific questions listed above. There are many more questions in addition to these, but this is perhaps sufficient to make my points:

* It's possible to accept the natural science of climate change, but reject the policies proposed to combat it.
* It is possible to think that climate change is anthropogenic, but to humanely conclude that nothing should be done about it.

However unpopular it is (on videosift especially) to dissent to the claims that anthropogenic climate is "real," it should be noted that such dissent does not, de facto, "deny" the science, but does, instead, take a far more considered approach that accepts the natural science in light of its many social scientific implications.

Please don't call them skeptics. They're not. Skepicism is the questioning of ideas or beliefs until presented with evidence that supports them, and it's a Good Thing(tm).

With climate change, there is overwhelming evidence to show that it's real, it's happening now and it's man made.

The people that don't accept it aren't skpetics, they're in denial. We don't call creationists "evolution skeptics", don't give AGW deniers a more elevated position.

Oh, and @A-Winston, you won't believe Nye because he's "only a mechanical engineer" (ignoring the 97% of actual climate scientists that agree with him) but you're perfectly happy to believe an author (someone who makes up stories for a living!) and whose book is full of

flawed or misleading presentations of Global Warming science exist in the book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, satellite vs. ground-based measurements of Earth's warming, and controversies over sea level rise estimates

So, I take it that you didn't click the link in my comment. If you had, you'd have seen the graph that shows an increase in the ice caps from May to October. (Psst: That's not wintertime, last I checked.)

Quoting: "“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes."

It measured an overall increase in the size of the icecaps over the last three decades. So while there may have been a decrease in the computer models, the ice caps have actually increased in size in reality.

Quoting again: "Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978."

I personally don't know if it is increasing or decreasing. But, suffice it to say, the science suggests that this is certainly not "obvious BS" as you seem to think it is...

But regardless, I needn't have to say it again: The folks at Bilderberg (or anywhere else) will do nothing to "stop" "climate change" one way or another. (And neither will you... And neither will the politicians.) For some, this "debate" is just a convenient way to justify the state's control over its citizens. Mr. Samsom was an employee of Greenpeace. Later, the CEO of a "green energy" company. Given his background and corporate connections, it is in his best interests (both politically and financially) to align himself within the "OMG! Climate Changed the weather!" camp. He probably ran for office on that platform, highlighting his "environmentalist" credentials. But he's a politician. Only politicians and videosifters seem to know what's "really going on." If there is any climate consensus at all, it is that most climate scientists have no opinion about it.

In fact, no more than 4% have come out with an opinion about what causes "global warming" or whether it is a "problem or not." And even this 4% has not been calling skepticism "BS" with the certainty that the online "pundits/scientists" like you seem to muster.

But I realize that this isn't really about "climate change." It's not even about Bilderberg. It's about "validation". Nothing more, nothing less. And so, for that, I wish you the best of luck in your attempts to "correct" those politicians (and/or "educating" those who "believe" or "pretend to believe" whatever you disagree with). Such is the condition of living in a "democracy" so you're going to need all the luck you can get!

Your video, Arctic wolf howl, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

More like 75-125 lbs for arctic wolf males. 60-70lbs is not that big (labs weigh that).

Canada wasn't looking at the F-22 though, they were looking at the F-35. Imo, as an armchair Defense Minister, the Eurofighter fills the role of arctic interceptor that the F-35 was terrible at.

Good, solid, clap of thunder causes the vapour to massively condense.

Anyone who's lived on the prairies during thunderstorm season has seen this. This just was caught on film.

I also live up here in the Sub-Arctic Rain Forest, and while I too have yet to see it happen locally, I can't tell you how many times I've had a sticky, humid but dry, hot day with monster thunderheads only to have a 10 minute deluge shortly after a decent, loud thunder clap.

It's like shaking a small tree after a rain.

Have you read any super-depressing articles lately? If not, try this one: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22790-the-vanishing-arctic-ice-cap

Nothing new, really. Just another reminder that we're thorougly bummed.

"The 40-year lag between emissions of greenhouse gases and consequent rise in global-average temperature suggests our planetary fate was sealed decades ago."

It would have ruined my day, but a coworker brought some delicious cheese cake along, so everything's in balance.

Point one of these in your eye for a self-labotomy!

http://www.wickedlasers.com/arctic

2W laser, jeebus. Someone get me some sharks.

"The other day I saw a film called The Edge, which I regarded as the best thing to come out of Hollywood since The Silence of the Lambs. Perhaps not coincidentally, this flick also starred Anthony Hopkins. In one scene, Hopkins and his co-star, Alec Baldwin, seem in an absolutely hopeless situation, lost in the Arctic, stalked by a hungry bear, without weapons, seemingly doomed. Baldwin collapses, and Hopkins has a magnificent monologue, talking Baldwin out of his despair. The speech runs, roughly, like this: "Did you know you can make fire out of ice? You can, you know. Fire out of ice. Think about it. Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

This riddle has both a pragmatic and symbolic (alchemical) answer. The pragmatic answer you can find in the film, explicitly; and it might prove useful if you ever get lost in the north woods; and the alchemical, or Zen Buddhist, answer is also in the film, implicitly, and only perceptible to those who understand the dense character Hopkins plays in the story. It might prove useful whenever despair seems to overwhelm you. So, to those who at the end of this book still can't understand or sympathize with my Nietzschean yea-saying, I quote again: "Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

Who was that Prometheus guy and why did he give us fire in the first place?"

~Robert Anton Wilson

What statement did you make? All I saw was wishy-washy hand-wavy nonsense without a single verifiable claim.

Our year is shaped by geography and climate, the sun being part of that. Someone who grows up in the Arctic circle will have a very different experience than someone born on the same day in Australia. But even then, they might move.

The idea that "we base our lives on the sun and stars" is bullshit. The sun influences my life only to the extent that the weather does, and it certainly doesn't predetermine any kind of destiny. The stars don't influence my life at all, apart from being pretty to look at and interesting to learn about.

I don't think you're grumpy, radx. Granted, my posts tend to have that same ominous tone, in general so I guess I'm a grump too. If you really think about the scale of inequality today, the absolute plundering the ultra-rich enjoyed during the recent recession and the efforts to keep money in politics to perpetuate this cycle with brilliant tools like Citizens United, it's hard not to be bleak.

Unfortunately, what we like to call democracy simply does not have the teeth to affect meaningful change. I am encouraged by the relative economic performance from the list of countries that have scrapped first past the post (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ) except for maybe Portugal, but even with more effective elections there is still an extra seat for the rich in every government.

Even more unfortunate will be the painful revolution the world will endure to either change from capitalism to some other form of economics (maybe resourced-based, a-la Peter Joseph.) If we don't simply slide obediently into greater and greater concentrations of wealth for the ultra-rich, we get closer and closer to revolution. But all it will take will be one upheaval to spur the revolution into action, be it:
- another, even more severe recession (maybe the EU will implode, taking the world economy down with it)
- severe global warming positive feedback loop from the arctic methane stores
- nuclear war

And who the hell knows what else might set people off. Maybe a solar flare will fry all the satellites in orbit and the lack of new tweets will create a world-wide frenzy of irate twats. And who knows when it will happen. Maybe 5 years, maybe 50 years. Since money pulls the strings, I think we're doomed to guess as to the source of VoodooV's "tipping point."