I think we should resettle Carbonicus and his ilk in Key West, and then blow up the 7 mile bridge. When the ocean waves make it to the middle of town and their screaming starts, we'll all have a nice laugh.

Arctic ice extent is currently - like today - at the lowest extent on record for the time of year.
And of course that means it's almost certainly at the lowest extent for this time of year for at least 8.000 years.

So basically, in your response to CB, your argument is (paragraph by paragraph)
1. "despite what is obvious, I say no"
2. obviously wrong, yours was a response to SBarlow
3. name calling followed by accusation of name calling followed by an actual threat
4. chest beating (and if you know Carbonicus's history, self-unaware projection and hypocrisy)
btw, it wasn't an attempt to vilify, it was exposing your lies
You are such a master(d)bater!

Once again, you are
1. cherry-picking time
2. cherry-picking data sets
3. not accounting for mechanism
4. regurgitating propaganda
How many times have you cut and paste this and every time come to the wrong conclusion? Polly wanna cracker?

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that humans largely contribute to climate change. However, if you are faced with these 4 outcomes:

1)
the scientific community is right & we take the necessary measures to alleviate climate change: it could be expensive in the short run, but we would safely overcome the challenges with minimal climate & environmental disruption, and the overall financial benefits compared to
doing nothing are likely to be very positive in the long run. The money we put up front will have been an
excellent investment.

2)
The scientific community is wrong but we take those measures, anyway: it would be expensive, but there’d be many other benefits we’d gain: much less pollution, we’d continue to have a diverse flora & fauna, we’d still have most of our resources, we’d be much healthier, we’d likely have a healthier employment situation, a less uneven wealth distribution, etc. Again, an excellent investment.

3)
The scientific community is wrong & we don’t take those measures: we’d save some money in the short run, but our resources would be greatly depleted & therefore much more expensive; disputes over water & other resources would likely get steadily more frequent &
violent, we’d have pollution of all kinds, our oceans would be dying, there’d be catastrophic extinction of plants & animals (already we’re experiencing one of the greatest mass extinctions in the history of this Earth due mainly to
human activities), our overall health would likely decline, etc.

4)
The scientific community is right but we do nothing: then even more calamitous extinction; huge displacement of human populations; widespread conflict over our remaining resources, including water; widespread & uncontrollable disease; increasing crop failure; intolerable weather; gigantic destructive storms; possible extinction of the human species.

So what is the best outcome?
Actually, it’s #2: scientists are wrong but we take preventive measures – the response coal companies & other climate deniers are telling us not to take! . We would’ve put some money upfront, but the side benefits would be well worth it & we wouldn’t’ve had to go through some of the worsening effects of climate change that we feared were impending. #1 would be the 2nd
best outcome, because although we go through some tough times weathering through some of the effects of climate change that appear sure to come no matter what we do, we will have survived & overcome our greatest world climate threat we’ve ever faced. Even
though it seems to be the industrialists’ dream, #3 is only 3rd best result for humankind, because although we wouldn’t face the climate challenges (beyond the normal cycles we’ve always faced), we’d still be a much worse place due to widespread pollution, resource depletion, wildlife extinction, etc., which would eventually take us down, anyway, even without being pushed on by climate change. Of course, #4 would be the worst. Conclusion: we must take the (now urgent & drastic) measures necessary to combat climate change & environmental degradation, whether 97%+ of the scientists are correct, or certain powerful, superwealthy fossil fuel & chemical industries such as Koch, Exxon, Monsanto & Dow are correct.

No matter which side is right, taking these measures is clearly the prudent course to take. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be and the more we will suffer.

Even if these outcomes were considered to have equal
possibility (they’re not: the probabilities overwhelmingly favor #1 or #4, depending on our action or inaction), and even if you didn’t care about maintaining animal & plant diversity, a pleasant environment, clean air, clean water, your own personal health & longevity to say nothing about other people’s (because if you were this way, you wouldn’t care about other people), but only about getting rich, any reasonable businessman, in order to insure himself from the worst consequences, which would be so dire that the differences among the other outcomes become trivial, would choose to take appropriate measures to tackle this possible climate change challenge.

23 years is so insignificant a time as to be a joke.
If you had a strong argument, you would not have to depend on name-calling and insults.
How about this one......"comment parasites."

Where are those accounts, Jondalar? People of intellectual integrity actually cite factual references to back up opinions.

That said, just because a couple of ice-breakers managed to get through the Northwest Passage in the past doesn't mean it was "ice-free." Far from it.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...