This summer may see first ice-free North Pole

it will be the same with Greenland. They are telling us not to worry. And then, suddenly they will say, oh! it is melting faster than we expected. It should have melted in 1000 years but it is melting four times faster so it will be melted in 250 instead. sorry and too bad, too late.

The people were warned already by sufficient way by Al Gore and other proponents of global warming. Did you see the Inconvenient truth? But the voices of "alarmiststs" were marginalized intentionally, because people don't want to restrict itself in their needs in general. So we'll suffer the consequences.

Ok, all together now.

Shut your eyes very tight.
Put your fingers in your ears.
Repeat after me.
There is no global warming.
There is no global warming.
There is no global warming.

See, it's all fake!

None of the talking heads talks about the #1 source of GW. That would be the earth's worst parasite ... humans. With some sort of population control worldwide, it would attack GW on all fronts eventually. Population and it's land use, pollution, and deforestation are all pre-cursors that ought to be tackled before any talk of ridiculous "carbon taxes". CO2 is not an easy gas to sequester, and since there is NO real alternative to carbon based fuels, doing so may be more environmentally damaging than just airing it out.

Come on GW denialist bullshitters, where's your spirit. You were all over that Hansen story. Oh, that's right, you guys only comment when a someone you know how to vilify makes a statement. When there are real facts at hand you just quiet down and wait for the next press release to give you a chance to spew about one of your favorite demons. It's sort of the way the Christian fundy preachers endlessly talk about Satan. I mean seriously do they think Satan micromanages the whole hellish bureaucracy? No, he DELEGATES!

..When there are real facts at hand you just quiet down and wait for the next press release to give you a chance to spew about one of your favorite demons...

This is exactly my experience too - these guys are all out of reality. Check the Motl's blog, for example.

Real facts? BAAHahaahahaha....oh wait you were serious weren't you? So what if there is or isn't ice in Greenland or the arctic (there wasn't about 400,000 years ago)? It doesn't prove a f*&#(ing thing about anthropogenic global warming.

We all know the "climate changes" (lovely little catch phrase that, global warming seems to have lost its vogue) periodically, in fact it's the ONE thing we can say for certain. Oh I could go on about CO2 concentrations millions, and hundreds of thousands of years ago, about the miniscule contribution CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. Not this kid, not anymore. It would be like trying to beat a blind man into seeing...worse than a total waste of time.

"It would be like trying to beat a blind man into seeing...worse than a total waste of time."

And yet here he is ladies and protozoans. Recycling the same tired old long debunked nonsense about CO2 being unimportant and how no amount of rapid climate change can prove ANYTHING because in the faith-based world of your typical denialist nothing proves anything contrary to the pre-established belief system.

But he's tired - sooooo tired, sooooo wewy, wewy tired (visualize Madeline Kahn in Blazing Saddles for this bit). He's tired of the hard hard work of enlightening all those illiterate rubes with their fancy PhD's in made up sciences like climatology. That's why he's quit and gone back to working at Home Depot and will trouble us no more with the troof about the Great Climate Conspiwacy. Well, then good riddance asshole, now get me that fucking ratchet wrench I asked for.

I'm just wondering do you know the difference between facts and hate filled bigoted bile? Based on reading the two posts you've inflicted on this forum I think you might want to make sure you fully comprehend both concepts.

Well, I certainly know the difference between peer reviewed scientific research and the sort of mendacious, arrogant, condescending, crackpot bullshit that people like you inflict on this forum. That's the important distinction here.

Well you've definitely shown that the only way you debate an issue is with one of two closely related logical fallicies. You either use argumentum ad verecundiam, or argumentum ad hominem. Facts don't seem to be in your vocabulary here at least.

As we all know there's no reason to appeal to scientific authorities about something like, say, scientific facts. I love the Latin too. It still won't get you that education that would make anyone who does real science actually care what you think. And I've seen your so called facts anyway (they consist of the only thing the GW denier crowd trades in, which is lies and distortions). I've heard all this garbage a million times before and so has everyone in the scientific community, CO2 was higher millions of years ago, water vapor, climate always changes, blah, blah, fucking blah. It's all about as interesting as listening to bunch of 9/11 troofers yak about bombs in the support columns at the WTC, You're nothing but another pompous little weasel spreading FUD, not facts. You're not here to debate, you're here to lie and distort. Either that or you're actually dumb enough to get your climate science from the Cato Institute and similar FUDtanks that get paid millions to spread this crap.

Hmm and a climatologist is a "scientist" who gets paid how? Does he get paid better if there is some important reason to look at the climate? Would he get paid more still if his "work" was closely tied to a political agenda? So he's more objective than FUDtanks because he gets government grants? *snicker* mmmmkaaay.

Yes, and believe me all of us who don't do "real science" are so glad all the elites are out there being busy saving us from ourselves...and he called me condescending? I mean hell if the scientists know so much and all knowing why even have a democratic society? Why not just let the philosopher kings make all our decisions for us. Then the world would be perfect wouldn't it....

P.S. If the latin bugs you I can talk to you like you're a three year old. That's doable if it makes you more comfortable. I just gave you the credit that you'd know what it meant, but since you can't even seem to get the hang of paragraphs I'll try to speak more down to earth and s l o w l y if you prefer.

From your so-called arguments it sounds like I'm the one who needs to speak more slowly. I'll spell it all out for you since it seems you're too stupid to get it at all and then I'll leave you alone.

You show up here and blather on endlessly about "facts", yet a simple glance at this thread shows the only relevant ones to be in the original article. Admittedly, you posted some well traveled distortions about how climate always changes but I'm not willing to give you any credit for that since I didn't feel like edumacating you about rates of change being important. Again, you either already know this and are deliberately distorting the issue or are quite stupid. Then you whine about how tired you are and how you could go on about this and that but it's all too HAAAAAAARD for you and because, and I quote you "It would be like trying to beat a blind man into seeing...worse than a total waste of time." Now see dipshit, that's where the "condescending" part came in - from you, right at the outset. So right away I was disinclined to respect you or treat you well.

Everything after that was predictable too. Now you've switched tacks and you're trotting out the old "scientists are just in it for the money, ignoring the well known links between right wing billionaires, fossil fuel industries and those very FUDtanks we are discussing. That's where the money is pal, not in science. Then you ask, apparently seriously, though it sounds like a joke, whether we should respect the opinions of a bunch of cranks in a "think"-tank who do absolutely no original research and to whom "peer review" means running the idea past Newt Gingrich instead of those who spend years learning very hard subjects and publishing their work where other similarly qualified people can vet it? I can tell you're one of those silly people who has a list of "logical fallacies" and likes the one about argument from authority best of all. Well, here's a clue, sometimes you actually should listen to people with real credentials. Or do you go to the village witch doctor when you're sick? Maybe you do. Good luck with that.

All in all a pattern of mendacity, condescension and distortion. Exactly what I expect from GW deniers. Thanks for putting yourself on display for us all to see. Behold, homo denialisticus in all his wretched glory. Variants exist that specialize in evolution, 9/11 troofiness, and HIV/AIDS denial. An earlier subspecies homo denialisticus tobbacanisticus is, thankfully, all but extinct.

Hey it's fine to listen to people with credentials, but to make that the sole basis of your argument is wrong. It's ok to use your own brain, really try it sometime. If you go to the doctor and he tells you something you don't think is right, it's ok to get a second opinion or even a third. See there, no "which doctor" needed. Apparently I did give you too much credit to think you'd understand this intrinsically without having it spelled out for you. I was wrong and I apologize. It's a concept called critical thinking.

Guess what, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're evil creationist tobaccophiles, or even wrong. You (now get ready for this) might be wrong, especially if you just accept what is spoon fed to you from the "authorities" whoever you deem them to be. Hey I might be wrong, but no one has convinced me of that. I'm pretty sure that no amount of illogical screed is going to do the trick either, but keep it up...it's entertaining.

I can tell you're one of those people who doesn't have a clue how to argue logically, you haven't yet, and while you may think it "scores points" to call people silly who are acquainted with logical debate it actually does the opposite.

You also seem determined to bring non sequiturs into the argument too, like AIDS and evolution (wtf?) which is also very telling about the validity and style of your "debate". Not to say that it's not funny as hell though so by all means keep it up.

Hey it's fine to listen to people with credentials, but to make that the sole basis of your argument is wrong.

Thus we should listen to people without credentials too, even on matters where actually knowing something about the subject is sort of important? My auto mechanic's opinion about how to treat my cancer is just as good as my oncologist's. The doctors all said I need chemo and radiation though they differed a little in which specific drugs. The mechanic said I need a full course of motor oil and transmission fluid with occasional sack beatings using a torque wrench. Not only that but it's a well known fact that my mechanic was paid huge sums by the people who make motor oil, transmission fluid and torque wrenches to recommend them for all diseases. Which to choose????

It's ok to use your own brain, really try it sometime. If you go to the doctor and he tells you something you don't think is right, it's ok to get a second opinion or even a third. See there, no "which doctor" needed. Apparently I did give you too much credit to think you'd understand this intrinsically without having it spelled out for you. I was wrong and I apologize. It's a concept called critical thinking.

The problem, my dear shitdipper, is that you have THOUSANDS of second opinions on AGW already and they all now say the same thing - AGW is real, it's caused by CO2 and we need to do something about it.

Guess what, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're evil creationist tobaccophiles, or even wrong. You (now get ready for this) might be wrong, especially if you just accept what is spoon fed to you from the "authorities" whoever you deem them to be. Hey I might be wrong, but no one has convinced me of that. I'm pretty sure that no amount of illogical screed is going to do the trick either, but keep it up...it's entertaining.

I can tell you're one of those people who doesn't have a clue how to argue logically, you haven't yet, and while you may think it "scores points" to call people silly who are acquainted with logical debate it actually does the opposite.

Actually no one spoon fed me anything and I know a hell of a lot more than you about the science involved here, at least judging from the lame excuses for argument you present. I also know how to spot contradictions. You say "no witch doctor is needed" and yet, in a post above you tell me I need to hear out the cranks at Cato and similar propaganda mills. Yet that's exactly what they are, witch doctors, specifically, for the most part Juris Doctors and people with degrees in political science, trained in sophistry and political hackery, not in science. Your analogy with second opinions falls flat. A second opinion still, I'm presuming, has a medical degree, no?

You also seem determined to bring non sequiturs into the argument too, like AIDS and evolution (wtf?) which is also very telling about the validity and style of your "debate". Not to say that it's not funny as hell though so by all means keep it up.

Wrong again Spanky, I was pointing out a simple fact. All you denailist guys use the same bag of stupid tricks. Distort complex scientific facts to play to a lay audience untrained in their proper interpretation is one. This plays especially well in the US with its appalling record on science education.

Then you villify a few scientists or public personas to create the impression that there are really just a few individuals who pulled whole theories out their asses after too much tequila one night. The creationist does this with Darwin, it's why he never speaks in public of "the theory of evolution" only "Darwinism" as if entire evolutionary biology faculties were simply hooded acolytes worshiping at the shrine of St. Darwin. The AGW denialist does this with Dr. Hansen and Al Gore (that was my original point by the way). It's a good way to create an implicit impression that theoretical edifices are the work of just a few people who can then be vilified and discredited. The public thinks - "hey that Al Gore/Hansen/Whoever is a a fat asshole so the whole AGW thing is phony".

Then you've got your basic outright lie. Say that there are no transitional fossils, say there's no valid statistical connection between cigarettes and cancer, hell say the earth is cooling and Florida will soon be a glacier. Take advantage of the fact that people are lazy and won't bother to check.

You've done most of this here. CO2 a tiny part of the greenhouse effect? Technically true but a massive distortion given the positive feedbacks involving water vapor and the fact that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. Look up "positive feedback" on Wikipedia and learn some fucking math. Might I recommend a college course in differential equations, thermodynamics and the full calculus sequence.

North pole ice free 400,000 years ago? CO2 higher millions of years ago? OK, this one is so stupid I'm having trouble knowing even where to begin and is one reason I took such an assholish tone with you, since It's usually a typical AGW denier's way of saying "I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about but found this on my favorite wingnut blog". Think about how S-L-O-W-L-Y most of those climate changes happened in the distant past. Think about how no other species had built cities, farms, railroads or anything else worth anything in those ages. Also try to think of all those people in New York and LA and Miami who are going to really pissed off when their homes are under water because all the ice melted too fast. If AGW were happening as slowly as most changes in the distant past did we could move whole cities and agricultural zones in an orderly fashion over centuries to millenia. Guess what, it's happening much faster this time. Jebus Erik Cartman Christ does anyone really need to spell this stuff for you? I suspect not in fact. I suspect that like most of your ilk you came here to spread FUD and disinformation. Kind of a stupid place to do it since most people here are fairly familiar with basic science. Might I recommend a Fox News blog next time. You'll find much better prospects there.

Ooh I seem to have stumbled into a church for discussing beliefs. GW is all speculation, wtf is the point in arguing about it? Place yer bets and lets see how it turns out, or make a big deal about it and waste yer time, effort and resources on sumin that's inevetable.

ModernMystic is just hilarious! Or perhaps is kind of scary - he obviously thinks he's so so rational, and he probably represents a huge number of delusional souls. I mean, really!
"Hmm and a climatologist is a "scientist" who gets paid how? Does he get paid better if there is some important reason to look at the climate? Would he get paid more still if his "work" was closely tied to a political agenda? So he's more objective than FUDtanks because he gets government grants? *snicker* mmmmkaaay."
Let's see - government (as in NASA, NOAA, etc.) scientists get a salary, which is the same across all fields. Climate scientists are not paid more than, say, a coal energy scientist working for DOE. And does anyone think the Bush administration is sliding climate scientists like Hansen extra $$ under the table! Not only that, but if Hansen tried to put even a penny of a grant into his own pocket, he'd be thrown out the door with his coat tails flapping. They send the grants to the NASA financial office, not to the scientists - get a clue! It has to be strictly accounted for, or else the AG, or the GAO, steps in to investigate.
Anyone who thinks a government salary, and the perpetual threat of being fired for being at odds with the administration - the top of his chain of command - would make someone (or hundreds, or thousands of them) less objective than a policy center spreading the agenda of an industry rolling in hundreds of billions of dollars of record profits - it's just loopy.

People, there is a GREAT deal of evidence of the ice caps that have existed at the North pole (If ice melts-raising of global water levels 3-4 feet), on Greenland (if it melts-will rise global levels 2-3 ft), Antarctica (1.5X size of US landmass with .5-1.0 MILE thickness) (If all this melts will raise global water levels 10-12 FT). Think about the loss & the change to world climate should all that disappear.
99% of cities at coasts, therefore near the oceans are only 2 to 2.5 feet above sea level. Most of, within the USA, these areas: NYC& especially Manhattan, Wash. DC-especially from Potomac, (obvious) New Orleans & great deal of LA, MS, AL,FL, & more are only 3-4 feet at most above sea level(to not even mention at least a couple hundred cities around the world that would be 'adversely' affected when water levels are 5-8 feet higher than now). All this affecting tens to hundreds of MILLIONS of people, if not a couple BILLION people in 20-30 years. Even if all the CO2& other greenhouse gases can be 'disproved', the CO2 levels that are 'supposedly' (according to the critics of it) causing the global warming can be disputed,there's another bad effect of the extremely well documented rise in global CO2 levels.
There is a HUGE amount of data showing & proving that the rising CO2 levels are changing the ocean's PH levels, as CO2 dissolved in water creates Carbonic acid, killing a great deal of oceanic sealife, including coral formations. There is significant evidence of the rising acidification of the sea water to show that 80% of sealife very, VERY possibly(-60% likelihood by continued & increased emissions of CO2 from all sources: Human, agricultural, cultural, natural) could die off in next 30-50 years. As a global society, it'll take us at least 30-50 YEARS to change from being energy-enslaved to Petroleum fuel sources for vehicles, airplanes& ships. For the 3 greatest forests around the world, which includes the well-known Amazon rainforest, each are losing close to 600,000 square acres/year, further diminishing our planets ability to soak up our CO2 emissions & adding 20 million tons of CO2 back in the air from the slash& burning agriculture in the rain forest regions. That's all besides if we don't deplete the oceans of the vitally needed sealife first, in the next 15-20 years. Just something to think about.

Lot of passion here. Here's a question I never hear asked and this goes out to both sides of the debate: If people really believe what they are saying and think they are correct, what else would you expect them to do besides make their point known? It is extremely rare to scream at someone and have them suddenly say, "You know what? You're right."

Since we are all children compared to the huge body of knowledge that is the universe and since anyone who has read about the 90 and 180 degree turns scientific conclusions have had to take in the past, perhaps a little understanding and patience, eh?

Utter nonsense. The North Pole has been ice free numerous times in the past. This is well documented by anecdotal and empirical data. How can Physorg publish such crap?

"The North Pole has been ice free numerous times in the past."
Umm, like some hundred thousand years ago and more is "recorded history"? Or are you referring to the cracks in the ice that occasionally open briefly at the pole?

Hi.
I dont need all these scientists to know that GW is here. I've been living on this planet (in the same place) for a very long time. It used to be cold and it's not now!