Yes, the deniers are raising their voices loudly as if they are genuinely alarmed (and they are, since action on climate change would threaten their oil profits). The realists just go on with the science.

Who are you addressing?

60 Megabits of what?

"Did you read the article? They arbitrarily increased all buoy temperature data."

I'm trying to figure out if you have a reading comprehension problem (since you apparently did read at least a portion of the article), or simply don't know what "arbitrary" means.

We may have a mixed future, where we get our AC from the Edison company, and our DC from Tesla.

Oh, I'm sure *that* will be impartial. (rolls eyes}

Bye Felicia

And we are doing it by outsourcing a lot of our production overseas. Yay us!

USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

Haha, I had seen the second site you linked, but not the first one. It's just as funny!!!

"Southern" = the part closer to the south pole

Would not posting a submission whose only source is a biased opinion piece (more than) hint at a bias?

Too bad that area gain is in the winter time. Not much incident heat when you are a polar region pointed away from the Sun.

Er, did you read the Forbes link before you shared it? It was about sea ice. The ice loss in evidence is land ice. You are trying to imply that there is a contradiction when there is none?

Moreover, the link is to an opinion piece, not a news source. No wonder it was rejected.

But if you want to talk about the Forbes piece, it claims there is *no* polar sea ice retreat (and the headline is worse, it claims there is no polar ice retreat at all, sea or otherwise). It fails to distinguish between Arctic sea ice (which is retreating) and Antarctic (which is advancing). The latter seems to be occurring due to, among other factors, the inrush of fresh water from melting Antarctic glaciers -- which lowers salinity and raises the freezing point. Really sloppy work by the writer. (Actually I doubt that he was being sloppy. I'm sure he's smart enough to know about this stuff. I suspect he was being disingenuous.)

Sadly, the retreat in the Arctic is primarily in the summer, so it lowers the albedo of the region when that region is in continuous sunlight.

Sadly, the advance in the Antarctic is primarily in the winter, so it raises the albedo of the region when that region is in continuous darkness. Big help, huh?

"The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is..."

Er, no, "how thick the ice is" is called "thickness". Volume is thickness times area (or more precisely, thickness integrated over area).

That said, two data points (last year's area and this year's area) do not a trend make. I can't believe how many people don't get that (or enjoy telling lies so much that they don't care that it contradicts reason).

What tipped you off?